Laymen and length of hair

[Andrew James]

Greetings in the Lord!

I was wondering what the view was on laymen having long hair? I have been told by some that having long hair was against the writings of the Holy Apostle Paul. Some have said that St. Paul supported long hair on men, he just meant it should be tied back. Others say it's only for monastics. So I am very confused. Can somebody tell me what the answer is?

In Christ,
Andrew

[Kris]

Greetings in the Lord!

I was wondering what the view was on laymen having long hair? I have been told by some that having long hair was against the writings of the Holy Apostle Paul. Some have said that St. Paul supported long hair on men, he just meant it should be tied back. Others say it's only for monastics. So I am very confused. Can somebody tell me what the answer is?

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi,

My understanding is that long hair is not bad per se, provided it is not out of vanity, or makes you appear effeminate.

So monks and priests will allow their hair to grow long, but they only tie it back; they don't style it in any way.

But if you're a laymen, it is perhaps better to keep your hair short (but without using a razor, if you want to conform to OT custom).

And don't forget to grow your beard long ;-)

In XC,
Kris

[Olga]

And don't forget to grow your beard long ;-)


... though if the hair is long enough and the beard impressive enough, don't be surprised if you are egged on to join the diaconate or priesthood by your priest! (no irreverence intended, but I have seen this happen quite often!) Russian priests in particular are well-known for this. If it does happen, take it as a compliment.

[Herman Blaydoe]

My bishop, Metropolitan Nicholas, is not a fan of long beards. He encourages those who are not monastic to eschew beards or at the very least keep them neatly trimmed, and that includes his married priests. He seems to be of the same mind concerning hair. I guess it can be summed up as only those who have professed monastics should look like monastics, otherwise it it simply pretense.

[Andrew James]

Greetings in the Lord!

Interesting posts so far to say the least!

Herman, what jurisdiction is Metropolitan Nicholas from?

In Christ,
Andrew

[Father David Moser]

I guess it can be summed up as only those who have professed monastics should look like monastics, otherwise it it simply pretense.

In one sense, I agree, however I think there is a question of what is it that makes a "monastic" look. The uncut hair and beard are both part of the monastic and the priestly tradition since the hair becomes a symbol of one's vow to live in obedience to a particular authority (monastic or hierarchal). Even without the idea of "untrimmed", beards are a (generally) unique feature of manhood and so having a beard isn't looking "monastic" but rather "masculine". Even with monastics, however, it seems to me that there is no value with being unkempt or dirty. My own bishop has an "untrimmed" beard - but it is never unkempt or ungroomed (he is definitely someone who is always immaculate in dress and grooming).

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

Greetings in the Lord!

Interesting posts so far to say the least!

Herman, what jurisdiction is Metropolitan Nicholas from?

In Christ,
AndrewAmerican Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD).

[Andrew James]

American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD).

Greetings in the Lord!

Oh yes, I see him now on the website. I seem to forget about the Carpatho-Russian Diocese. Maybe because I don't know very much about it.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Robert Hegwood]

All I can say is from a layman (and convert) perspective, I like our priests and monks to look like Orthodox priests and monks, beards, buns, and ponytails. And cassocks...I want to know at a glance I'm seeing an Orthodox priest or monastic not a Roman, Lutheran, or Anglican one. It gives me joy and makes me feel grateful to God when I see an Orthodox priest who is not afraid to look it (and whose bishops don't try to cow them into being baldfaced)

My own priest has short hair and a full but trimmed beard...and my bishop the classic patriarchal looking beard. Granted hair should be mistaken for spiritual depth, but there is a sacramental aspect to it as well and it seems to me that it is better to honor these customs rather than modernize our look. Too many camels already have their noses in our tent.

[Stephen]

Greetings,
This topic is exactly what has been put in front of me by my wife who is seriously considering converting but still has unanswered questions.

We are told that females need to cover their heads per Paul. She finds it a bit contradictory that females need to obey what Paul says yet men are allowed to have long hair which - at face value - goes directly against what he says. To her, this comes off as double minded and is giving her pause concerning Orthodoxy. She asks why she needs to listen to Paul on head coverings if I don't need to listen to him on short hair. Ouch!
We have discussed this with our priest and never really got an answer from him. We have not been able to get a reasonable answer on this yet.

Can anybody offer an explaination why females must cover their heads yet men are not obligated to have short hair - and in fact - very accepted to have long hair? I have had long hair for many years and the fact that Orthodoxy (at least ROCOR) supports this for men made me feel quite comfortable. Now what can I tell my wife about head coverings in light of Orthodoxy's support of men with long hair without sounding like a hypocrite?

HELP!!

[Andrew James]

Greetings,
This topic is exactly what has been put in front of me by my wife who is seriously considering converting but still has unanswered questions.

We are told that females need to cover their heads per Paul. She finds it a bit contradictory that females need to obey what Paul says yet men are allowed to have long hair which - at face value - goes directly against what he says. To her, this comes off as double minded and is giving her pause concerning Orthodoxy. She asks why she needs to listen to Paul on head coverings if I don't need to listen to him on short hair. Ouch!
We have discussed this with our priest and never really got an answer from him. We have not been able to get a reasonable answer on this yet.

Can anybody offer an explaination why females must cover their heads yet men are not obligated to have short hair - and in fact - very accepted to have long hair? I have had long hair for many years and the fact that Orthodoxy (at least ROCOR) supports this for men made me feel quite comfortable. Now what can I tell my wife about head coverings in light of Orthodoxy's support of men with long hair without sounding like a hypocrite?

HELP!!

Greetings in the Lord!

I hope this excerpt from an article written by Constantine Cavarnos will help a bit.
(2) Cutting the Hair
With regard to the hair, the innovators, who want clergymen
to cut their hair short, as laymen are accustomed to doing in our
days, think that they have an unshakable argument for this in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 14. This verse
says: "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have
long hair (koma), it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have
long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a
covering?" They translate the verb koma as "lets his hair grow
long." But this is only part of its meaning. Koma has the
additional meaning "he adorns his hair." As for the length of the
hair, we cannot deduce from this passage that clergymen ought to
cut their hair in the contemporary fashion of laymen, leaving the
nape of the neck bare. What it obviously condemns is men in
general—not specifically clergymen—leaving their hair
completely uncut, so that it falls low to the waist, as women
formerly did, and adorning it. We find the meaning of the
passage in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the interpretation
which Zonaras gives to the ninety-sixth Canon of the Sixth
OEcumenical Synod. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles say: "Do
not give extra adornment to the natural beauty given to you by
God, but diminish it humbly before men, in this way not giving
undue care to your hair" (PG 1:564C). Zonaras says that theninety-sixth Canon of the Sixth OEcumenical Synod
excommunicates those who do not cut their hair at all, but
deliberately let it fall as far as the belt, like that of women, and
also those who dye it, or tie it up with reeds to make it curly, or
put on wigs (Pedalion, p. 306). For clergymen to let their hair
grow long enough to cover the nape of the neck is not forbidden
either by the passage of the Apostle which I mentioned, or by the
Apostolic Constitutions, or by the canons. And it is in keeping
with the oldest icons of Christ that are preserved, in which the
God-man and the "Great High Priest," as the Apostle Paul calls
Him [Hebrews 4:14], is depicted with hair falling down to His
shoulders.
Let our clergymen, then, not listen to the innovators, who
want them to be imitators of laymen and heterodox clergymen,
but let them remain imitators of Christ, according to the
exhortation of the Apostle, who says: "Be ye imitators of me, as I
also am of Christ" [1 Corinthians 11:1].

In Christ,
Andrw

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Stephen,

I think the quotes provided by Andrew James are very helpful.

Also consider that the point of what is being asked is that of modesty- and that applies equally to both men & women in the Church. Thus for women especially in a parish where they may be asked to cover their head, this is for the sake of not distracting males who are trying to keep attentive to the prayer going on in the church. Also many women say it helps them be more prayerful.

Again men are called to like standards in their own way. They should be modestly dressed so as not to lead others into temptation (eg wearing a tank top). Suitable clothing also helps us men or priests to pray.

It takes a bit of getting used to but in time both men & women feel something is wrong if for some reason they were to be in church without appropriate clothing.

In any case each parish has its own way of handling this issue so apart from the general advice offered here the parish & priest will determine how to adjust.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Also, what is the definition of "long"? Marines think anything more than a crew-cut is "long". To others, a modest pony tail, or shoulder length is still "short" hair. Cultural context plays some part I suspect. Our Lord's hair in icons is certainly not a crew-cut!

[Stephen]

Thanks all for the comments. I am printing them out for my wife now!

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Regarding the notion that a "priest should look like a priest" with "ponytail, bun, cassock," etc.

I, too, used to be of a similar mindset. However, after further study, I have learned that the long hair among non-monastic clergy began with the fall of Constantinopole. At that time, the Turks made the Orthodox bishops not only spiritual leaders, but civil leaders of the Romans (i.e. Orthodox). Thus, the Orthodox bishops adopted the previous imperial dress of the Roman Emperor, including the sakkos (previously bishops wore a phelonion like a priest) and the long hair. Under Turkish rule, the cassock was also adopted by clergymen. Not surprisingly, these customs also eventually spread to other Orthodox countries.

Previous to the fall of Constantinopole, Orthodox clerics generally wore their hair short, but most certainly wore well-kempt beards. I think the notion that clergy were bearded in the East since the time of the Apostles is nearly indisputable. Regarding their dress, clerics generally wore clothes similar to the laypeople. In fact, many of the vestments that our priests wear today were common dress in antiquity. Likewise, the "Roman collar" or "clergy collar" was common among laypeople at one time in the West.

Personal preferences aside (I still prefer cassocks), one could make a convincing argument that he who wears a business suit with a collar, has a well-kempt beard and short hair, is actually the most "traditionally" dressed Orthodox cleric. Of course, the most important principle for clergy is to be obedient to their bishop. Consequently, a priest who is clean-shaven and wears a collar and suit may actually be the most "traditional" if he is obedient to his bishop, whereas a priest with long hair, a beard, and a cassock may be in disobedience.

Aaron

[Father David Moser]

She finds it a bit contradictory that females need to obey what Paul says yet men are allowed to have long hair which - at face value - goes directly against what he says. ...
Can anybody offer an explaination why females must cover their heads yet men are not obligated to have short hair - and in fact - very accepted to have long hair?

I think it is also important to point out that Orthodoxy does not generically support long hair in men. The only men who let their hair grow as a matter of Church practice are those who have undertaken a vow - either as a monastic or as a clergyman. The hair (as we see in both the Old and New Testaments - Sampson and the Apostle Paul for example) is the symbol of a vow and remains uncut until the vow is fulfilled - and in the case of monastics and clergy that is generally a lifetime from ordination onward. Additionally, in some cases, when there is a need (such as holding an outside job), clergymen living in the world can be released from the prohibition on the trimming of hair by the simple permission of their ruling hierarch.

But there is no "support" for men wearing their hair long and pretending to look like monastics or clergymen when they are not. All men and women should be groomed appropriately to their station and occupation in life.


Fr David Moser

[Eric Peterson]

Regarding the notion that a "priest should look like a priest" with "ponytail, bun, cassock," etc.

I, too, used to be of a similar mindset. However, after further study, I have learned that the long hair among non-monastic clergy began with the fall of Constantinopole.
Aaron

Mr. Warwick,

Do you have a source for this? It strikes me as odd, because the Church of Russia had been around for 500 years prior to the Fall of Constantinople, and yet their priests wear cassocks, long hair, and beards traditionally. It would seem strange, historically, given what transpired just 200 years later in the Russian Church with the Old Ritualist Schism, that the Russian Church would just import freely whatever practices were being introduced in the Great Church of Constantinople under Turkish influence. I have real doubts about this notion that so much changed in Orthodoxy after 1453, but it's a notion that happens to be quite current in contemporary discourse on Orthodox practices.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Hi Eric,

I received an e-mail that you responded to this post. I have been inactive in this community for a while because of the demands of married seminarian life here at St. Vladimir's Seminary. However, I did want to respond to your post since it was a direct inquiry to me.

Regarding sources, I do not have any one particular source in mind. However, I would suspect it is treated in a book called "The Blessed Rasson" by John Sanidopoulos. Also, I would refer to the iconographic tradition of our church. I cannot think of any icons of pre-1453 non-monastic saints depicted with long hair. Of course, even if they were, this wouldn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other since there can be a tendency to depict historic figures according to modern norms. Finally, I would be happy to hear any quotes of pre-1453 saints/fathers mentioning that non-monastic priests must have or should have long hair. I know there are numerous quotes about beards, but I do not recall any about long hair.

It is, of course, well known that there is interaction between Orthodox jurisdictions and Russia has frequently adopted Constantinopolitan practices. You pointed out one instance of this with the Old Believers schism. There is an enormous difference, however, between something that would have happened shortly after 1453 and the Old Believers schism. The invention of the printing press made a big difference in church life. After the printing press you have many more liturgical texts available in writing for everyone to see and any changes are more obvious. Before the printing press, changes could be made and future generations would scarcely notice. I suppose this could be one theory to explain why the changes of long hair were more accepted. In addition, the fact that non-monastics become more like the monastics is generally not a reason for people to revolt as they did in the Old Believers Schism.

Finally, I would point out that prior to 1453 the Patriarch, let alone any other bishop, did not wear the sakkos, which was only worn by the Emperor. After 1453 when the Patriarch became the civil and religious leader of the Orthodox under Turkish occupation, he began to wear the sakkos. Other bishops also began wearing the sakkos later and I know of no revolt over this. In addition to books you could read on this subject, I would again point to the iconographic tradition in which you rarely see a pre-1453 bishop adorned in sakkos, but simply with an epitrachelion and omophorion. Look closely at an icon of St John Chrysostom sometime, for example.

Fr Aaron

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Eric,

One more thing I forgot to mention. The Russians would probably not have seen the introduction of long hair to be of "Turkish" influence. Rather, it was something that the "Roman" Emperor did, and the Patriarch essentially replaced the Roman Emperor civilly while maintaining his previous religious role. It is doubtful, then, that any changes would be seen as "Turkish" since they originated in "Roman" practice.

Fr Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The evidence from the past is very difficult to extrapolate from as to what the basic standards of appearance were for clergy especially over varied time and place.

For example Canon 21 of the 6th Ecumenical Council states that clergy who repent of their previous sinful behaviour may again be 'tonsured in clerical guise.' The interpretation to the canon refers to the tonsure and then says, "in other words, let them have a so-called papalethra (or 'patch') at the point of the head, which was a guise and token of clerics." Further along in the explanatory footnote for this practice it becomes clear from the comments that the ancient practice or form of 'tonsuring' has changed. Unfortunately due to editorial weaknesses in the English translation of the Pedalion it is very difficult to keep track of what comments come from St Nikodemos who originally put this collection together and what come from much earlier commentators; eg in the "Interpretations" especially. In any case it is evident that even from this one example we can see that the practice about hair for clergy changed over the centuries at least in Byzantine practice.

When & how the Russian tradition of married clergy having long hair arises I do not know. It is very apparent from 19th century photos that at least from this time married clergy had long hair. In the older manuscripts clergy with what appears to be longer hair are most often monastics, as of course are the bishops. The one example of what could be a non-monastic priest appears in the panorama 'Russian envoys to the diet of Regensburg in 1576'. In the right hand panel he is seen leading a service of some sort and is depicted with cropped hair. This is very flimsy evidence however for when and why the Russian tradition arose.

By the way- don't married clergy in Greece often have long hair? It seems I've seen so from my visits there. Here in North America many of the married Old Calendar Greek clergy have long hair. I don't know but I wonder if in the 19th up through the beginning of the 20th century most of the clergy had long hair.

If so it would be important to discover the reasons for this tradition which stands at the door step to our own time rather than going back to an even earlier period. After all this tradition is still going strong in certain parts of the larger Church and often a young man will begin growing his hair longer as soon as he attends seminary in hopes of being ordained. (interestingly in a kind of reverse order from the expected norm- the more Russian a seminary is the more the strict norm is for seminarians to have short hair until they are ordained). In any case the actual question I think is why we in recent decades have begun adopting this practice. Are we hearkening back in how we try to live to a more 'traditional time' within the Church? Is this a kind of visible adoption and marker of Orthodox values amidst a non-Orthodox world? (similarly many more also wear the cassock than used to be done even though like hair the past didn't have as universal a practice as we may think.)

Anyway just some thoughts. I hope I don't drive any of you too hairy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

the more Russian a seminary is the more the strict norm is for seminarians to have short hair until they are ordained).

From what I understand, alot like the military. When you first arrive at boot camp they shave it all off. Then as you progress, you are allowed to let it grow to a standardized length. hummm, army of man, army of God.

I know we have discussed in other threads on this topic about the head covering of men and women and being under the authority of someone else. I wonder also if the hair of Sampson comes into play with God's strength and the "strength" of the ascetics with longer hair? More symbolism within Orthodoxy?

Paul

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Fr Raphael and others,

You have provided at least some evidence, which by itself is certainly not conclusive, that non-monastic clergy have not always had long hair. Specifically, you quoted a canon that mentions clergy doing the exact opposite of growing out their hair--having it tonsured/cut.

In regards to your last paragraph, you seem to be inferring a point that I began trying to dispute earlier. Namely, that it is not 'more traditional' for a non-monastic priest to have long hair or, perhaps even, to wear a cassock. I am not necessarily saying these things are bad (in fact, I personally prefer cassocks), simply that we should not see these things as 'traditional' vs. 'untraditional' or 'traditional' vs. modernist. If anything, it seems to me that an argument could be made that the introduction of long hair among marrieds was an 'innovation,' not that many married priests now cut their hair.

Also, I agree with another point you seem to infer, that we should not blindly accept the past or return to something that was a more ancient tradition. Instead, we should rationally discern how best to express Orthodoxy in our culture and in our era. Part of doing that, I believe, is understanding why customs, such as hair length, have changed over time.

Fr Aaron

[Olga]

By the way- don't married clergy in Greece often have long hair? It seems I've seen so from my visits there. Here in North America many of the married Old Calendar Greek clergy have long hair. I don't know but I wonder if in the 19th up through the beginning of the 20th century most of the clergy had long hair.


Greek priests (in Greece) of both married and monastic variety definitely have long hair tied up in a bun. Of married Greek priests in Australia that I've come across, there are a few of them in recent years who are abandoning the western look of short hair and short beard, and adopting the more "traditional" look.

I'll also look into the iconographic portrayal of pre-1453 saints - it could be interesting.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Greek priests (in Greece) of both married and monastic variety definitely have long hair tied up in a bun. Of married Greek priests in Australia that I've come across, there are a few of them in recent years who are abandoning the western look of short hair and short beard, and adopting the more "traditional" look.

I'll also look into the iconographic portrayal of pre-1453 saints - it could be interesting.


Olga, a lot of married priests in Greece also have short hair and a beard, not too long and nicely clipped.

[Herman Blaydoe]

FWIW, in the ACROD, Metropolitan Nicholas expects his non-monastic clerics to be neatly groomed and specifically says that beards are "not necessary". Still, most of our clergy do have beards, just neatly groomed, except for military chaplains who have other standards to meet as well.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Surely the main point is what such things mean, what they represent, in terms of our specific calling within the Church.

Past practice or not has a point, but only in relative & limited way. In this discussion I would say the precedents, whichever way they point, are mainly seen by us in an illustrative way.

Which brings us back to the original point raised above. In what sense are such practices in themselves important- or are they?

Got to go.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

Men and Beards

I ALSO SAY A WORD FOR MEN. It is natural for a man who is going on fifty years to wear a beard. But here I see old men who are sixty and eighty years old and still shave. Aren't you ashamed to shave?

Doesn't God who gave us beards know better? Just as it is unseemly for an old woman to deck herself out and put on cosmetics, so it is for an old man to shave.

"When wheat grows and becomes white what does it signify?"

"Harvest.

"The same with man. When he grows up and becomes White, what does this signify?"

"Death."

"Is there anyone here who wishes to let his beard grow? Let him stand up and tell me so we can become brothers, and I shall pray for him and ask all the Christians to forgive

"I, Teacher."

"Good, you have my blessing. Pray to God for me, a sinner, so that I will pray for you too for as long as I live. Will you do it?"

"I will, 0 saint of God."

"I beg you, my fellow Christians, say three times for all those who let their beards grow: 'May God forgive and have mercy upon them."'

Let Your nobility also ask for forgiveness. And may God enlighten you to let go of your sins as you let your beard grow - You, young men, honor those with beards. And if there is a man of thirty with a beard and one of fifty, or sixty, or a hundred who shaves, place the one with the beard above the one who shaves, in church as well as at the table.

On the other hand, I don't say that a beard will get you to heaven, but good works will. And _your dress should be modest, as well as your food and your drink. Your whole conduct should be Christian so that you will be a good example for others.

St Kosmas Aetolos

http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/kosmas/first.html

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Past practice or not has a point, but only in relative & limited way. In this discussion I would say the precedents, whichever way they point, are mainly seen by us in an illustrative way.

Which brings us back to the original point raised above. In what sense are such practices in themselves important- or are they?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael,

Forgive me, but I am not sure I'm following what you are saying. Hopefully you can elaborate at a later time.

Personally, I think past practice--and beyond that, an understanding of why past practice was observed--is of the utmost importance in our discerning what to do in the present. As Orthodox Christians, we should not blindly accept something that was a practice before us, whether it was a practice 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. If we do not understand the reasons behind these practices, however recent or however ancient, we will be incapable of discerning how to apply our tradition to the present.

Fr Aaron

[Olga]

Olga, a lot of married priests in Greece also have short hair and a beard, not too long and nicely clipped.

This is very likely a recent (less than 20 years ago) phenomenon. I was last in Greece in 1985-86, and none of the married clergy I came across in any region (urban or rural) I visited had the short hair and beard which you describe.

I am aware that there have been moves by the Church of Greece in recent years to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance (shorter hair and beard, black suits instead of rassa) to encourage more men to consider entering the priesthood who may have been otherwise discouraged by traditional appearance and attire.

Here is a BBC article from 1998 on this subject:

Greece's Orthodox priests say their long black robes, pipe hats and overgrown beards are ruining their marriage prospects.


And they are calling for a makeover in an attempt to increase their chances of attracting a wife. Father Efstathios Kollas, head of the union of parish priests, says only 3,000 of Greece's 11,000 priests are married.

"If the robes create an obstacle for finding a wife, and you know they do, then the church's leadership must do something to modernise our appearance," he added.

Father Kollas, who favours a more simplified frock, argues that the frumpy cassocks are also discouraging educated Greeks from becoming men of the cloth. He says many candidates for the priesthood fear they will repel potential partners with such attire - not to mention the obligatory long whiskers.


Archbishop says priests can wear earrings
The priests' plea to shed their head-to-foot robes comes ahead of a meeting of the Holy Synod, the Greek Church's governing body. But it is not yet certain whether Father Kollas's call to revamp the strict dress code will come up for discussion.

The 10-day meeting to begin on Tuesday will be presided over by Archbishop Christodoulos, who at 59 is the youngest archbishop to head the Greek Orthodox Church.
Since his election in April, he has stressed the need to modernise the church, a bastion of conservatism, without abandoning its age old traditions.

In a surprise move last month, he even told young men they could wear earrings when they visit their pastors.
More than 90% of all Greeks are baptised Greek Orthodox, which is the country's official religion.


This, of course, is only one article, but from Effie's post, it seems that approval has been given at some level to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance. This begs the question: is physical appearance so important to a man considering becoming a priest? Should not the priesthood be a spiritual calling? Or am I simply an old-fashioned "grumpy old woman" who expects a priest to look like a priest, and not as a layman?

OTOH, I do, of course, accept that there are some specific circumstances such as military clerics who, for operational reasons, are required to have short hair and be clean-shaven (for instance, a beard does not allow a gas mask or respirator mask to work properly, as the mask cannot provide a proper seal against the face if a beard is in the way).

[Paul Cowan]

Greece's Orthodox priests say their long black robes, pipe hats and overgrown beards are ruining their marriage prospects.


I thought one could only marry before ordination.


"If the robes create an obstacle for finding a wife, and you know they do, then the church's leadership must do something to modernise our appearance," he added.

Father Kollas, who favours a more simplified frock, argues that the frumpy cassocks are also discouraging educated Greeks from becoming men of the cloth. He says many candidates for the priesthood fear they will repel potential partners with such attire - not to mention the obligatory long whiskers.

Since when has modernisation been a good thing for the Church? Sorry, just a stab at the BBC.

[Olga]

Hello Paul

From Effie's post, it appears the church in Greece has already accepted modernism. The BBC has little to do with it in this case ....

[Karena Hryniuk]

This is very likely a recent (less than 20 years ago) phenomenon. I was last in Greece in 1985-86, and none of the married clergy I came across in any region (urban or rural) I visited had the short hair and beard which you describe.

I am aware that there have been moves by the Church of Greece in recent years to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance (shorter hair and beard, black suits instead of rassa) to encourage more men to consider entering the priesthood who may have been otherwise discouraged by traditional appearance and attire.

Here is a BBC article from 1998 on this subject:

Greece's Orthodox priests say their long black robes, pipe hats and overgrown beards are ruining their marriage prospects.


And they are calling for a makeover in an attempt to increase their chances of attracting a wife. Father Efstathios Kollas, head of the union of parish priests, says only 3,000 of Greece's 11,000 priests are married.

"If the robes create an obstacle for finding a wife, and you know they do, then the church's leadership must do something to modernise our appearance," he added.

Father Kollas, who favours a more simplified frock, argues that the frumpy cassocks are also discouraging educated Greeks from becoming men of the cloth. He says many candidates for the priesthood fear they will repel potential partners with such attire - not to mention the obligatory long whiskers.


Archbishop says priests can wear earrings
The priests' plea to shed their head-to-foot robes comes ahead of a meeting of the Holy Synod, the Greek Church's governing body. But it is not yet certain whether Father Kollas's call to revamp the strict dress code will come up for discussion.

The 10-day meeting to begin on Tuesday will be presided over by Archbishop Christodoulos, who at 59 is the youngest archbishop to head the Greek Orthodox Church.
Since his election in April, he has stressed the need to modernise the church, a bastion of conservatism, without abandoning its age old traditions.

In a surprise move last month, he even told young men they could wear earrings when they visit their pastors.
More than 90% of all Greeks are baptised Greek Orthodox, which is the country's official religion.


This, of course, is only one article, but from Effie's post, it seems that approval has been given at some level to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance. This begs the question: is physical appearance so important to a man considering becoming a priest? Should not the priesthood be a spiritual calling? Or am I simply an old-fashioned "grumpy old woman" who expects a priest to look like a priest, and not as a layman?

OTOH, I do, of course, accept that there are some specific circumstances such as military clerics who, for operational reasons, are required to have short hair and be clean-shaven (for instance, a beard does not allow a gas mask or respirator mask to work properly, as the mask cannot provide a proper seal against the face if a beard is in the way).


I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this one. Unless somethings drastically changed in Greece in recent years, the cassock is worn after ordination along with growing of the beard and hair. And love should come through faith and faith only with no matter to cassocks or beards.

Besides, do women not find a beard attractive these days?? What IS the world coming to? This ones got my nose out of joint for the night, thanks to the BBC lol All in favor of beards say Aye!

(umhmm, headcoverer)
~Karena

[Olga]

Besides, do women not find a beard attractive these days?? What IS the world coming to?

For the record, Karena, my husband has a beard, even though he's not a priest or deacon. And I don't want him to shave it off, as he looks MUCH better bearded than clean-shaven! :))

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father,

I'm not referring so much as to how I consider beards and so on personally. To be categorical about this, no matter how one feels on the issue, bears little good fruit.

Rather I'm trying to bring up the issue of why or how we each within the Church make our choices. Precedent is one thing we reach out to. But since this precedent most always cuts both ways I would say the way we relate to this is relative in a sense. ie the precedent adds legitimacy to a practice relative to what we already believe correct.

This is interesting and instructive about our life within the Church then. Yes? :)

Fraternally In Christ- Fr Raphael


Fr Raphael,

Forgive me, but I am not sure I'm following what you are saying. Hopefully you can elaborate at a later time.

Personally, I think past practice--and beyond that, an understanding of why past practice was observed--is of the utmost importance in our discerning what to do in the present. As Orthodox Christians, we should not blindly accept something that was a practice before us, whether it was a practice 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. If we do not understand the reasons behind these practices, however recent or however ancient, we will be incapable of discerning how to apply our tradition to the present.

Fr Aaron

[Effie Ganatsios]

This is very likely a recent (less than 20 years ago) phenomenon. I was last in Greece in 1985-86, and none of the married clergy I came across in any region (urban or rural) I visited had the short hair and beard which you describe.

I am aware that there have been moves by the Church of Greece in recent years to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance (shorter hair and beard, black suits instead of rassa) to encourage more men to consider entering the priesthood who may have been otherwise discouraged by traditional appearance and attire.



This, of course, is only one article, but from Effie's post, it seems that approval has been given at some level to allow priests to adopt a more "modern" appearance. This begs the question: is physical appearance so important to a man considering becoming a priest? Should not the priesthood be a spiritual calling? Or am I simply an old-fashioned "grumpy old woman" who expects a priest to look like a priest, and not as a layman?

).

Olga, I have never seen a priest in a black suit. They all wear their clerical robes.

I have read that the rasso is worn so that the body under the clothes is not the first thing we notice about the priest. He is neutral, so to speak. There is also a logical reason for both the beard and the long hair, but I cannot remember it at the moment. I am sure that our priests on this forum have this information. I have found, after living here for so many years, that in the majority of cases there is a logical reason behind what modern people think of as "quaint customs".

And Olga, I too must be a "grumpy old lady" because I agree that a priest should look like a priest. First suits, then jeans, and then maybe those ripped jeans............. can you imagine it?



Effie

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Father,

I'm not referring so much as to how I consider beards and so on personally. To be categorical about this, no matter how one feels on the issue, bears little good fruit.

Rather I'm trying to bring up the issue of why or how we each within the Church make our choices. Precedent is one thing we reach out to. But since this precedent most always cuts both ways I would say the way we relate to this is relative in a sense. ie the precedent adds legitimacy to a practice relative to what we already believe correct.

This is interesting and instructive about our life within the Church then. Yes? :)

Fraternally In Christ- Fr Raphael

Indeed, our feelings bear little good fruit on this (or any other) subject.

I think the most important thing you said is: "The precedent adds legitimacy to a practice relative to what we already believe correct." The problem, in my opinion, is when people use this as an excuse to not think or to judge others. In other words, this statement of yours (at least as I interpret it) is akin to saying that some people 'prooftext' from the Bible. They do not read the Bible to be confronted by God's teaching, but enter into the reading with a pre-conceived notion of God and look for 'prooftexts' to support their position. Anything that seems to contradict their position is simply ignored.

It is my argument in this thread that many Orthodox do the same thing with our traditions or customs, especially with regard to long hair. There is a pre-conceived notion by some Orthodox that a priest must have long hair to "look like a priest." Why? Because that's the way their priest looks or because that's the way most of the priests in Greece look. My argument is that this is incorrect. My main problem with their position is that it is usually framed within the context of being more 'traditional.' I am simply trying to point out that a priest without long hair can be just as 'traditional.' Imagine, for example, seeing St. John Chrysostom and telling him he does not look traditional because, at least according to our iconographic tradition, he does not have long hair.

In XC,
Fr Aaron

[Bogdan]

Unless somethings drastically changed in Greece in recent years, the cassock is worn after ordination along with growing of the beard and hair.

actually in most seminaries (across all jurisdictions) students are now requested to wear cassocks to all formal church functions as soon as they enter the seminary. They get a blessing obviously when they enter, and are actually held to the requirements of that blessing, i.e. wearing a cassock.

[Nina]

Besides, do women not find a beard attractive these days?? What IS the world coming to? This ones got my nose out of joint for the night, thanks to the BBC lol All in favor of beards say Aye!

(umhmm, headcoverer)
~Karena

Giggles...

All of my female friends do not cover their heads, but they go crazy about Jim Caviezel with beard, Gerard Butler with beard and many other actors when they have a beard. Personally, I do not have an opinion in general about men and beards. But just wanted to say that we should not blame it on the beard (or long hair) if a man does not look good. If he does not look good with a beard, he does not look good without it.

[Father David Moser]

First I would like to point out that clergy do not have "long hair" but rather that the hair is uncut and thus often tends to grow long. I know some clergy who have uncut hair which is actually short...


I wonder also if the hair of Sampson comes into play with God's strength and the "strength" of the ascetics with longer hair? More symbolism within Orthodoxy?


This is precisely the reason that clergy have "uncut" or "untrimmed" hair and beards - at least as it was explained to me. The hair has been, from ancient times, the symbol of a vow. One would cut the hair when the vow was made and then let it grow until the vow was fulfilled. At the fulfillment of the vow, the hair was cut as sign that the person had completed that which they promised to do. The priest, when he is ordained, takes a vow of service to God and the Church before the Gospel and the Cross. From this point on, he does not cut his hair as a symbol of the fact that he is under a vow. Since the vow is never "completed" or ended, his hair is not cut for the whole of his life.

As this is a symbolic custom (as opposed to say a sacramental tradition) it can be modified according to the needs of the clergyman (say if he were to take a secular job which had particular grooming standards - as has been mentioned, for example in relation to military chaplains) or the custom of the culture in which the priest serves, or at the discretion of the ruling bishop.

[Andreas Moran]

Some Cypriot men (laymen) let their hair grow during mourning for a close relative.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm not sure if anyone has yet commented on how hair and beard for the clergy are a sign of their calling. Not the sign but a sign.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Effie Ganatsios]

First I would like to point out that clergy do not have "long hair" but rather that the hair is uncut and thus often tends to grow long. I know some clergy who have uncut hair which is actually short...



This is precisely the reason that clergy have "uncut" or "untrimmed" hair and beards - at least as it was explained to me. The hair has been, from ancient times, the symbol of a vow. One would cut the hair when the vow was made and then let it grow until the vow was fulfilled. At the fulfillment of the vow, the hair was cut as sign that the person had completed that which they promised to do. The priest, when he is ordained, takes a vow of service to God and the Church before the Gospel and the Cross. From this point on, he does not cut his hair as a symbol of the fact that he is under a vow. Since the vow is never "completed" or ended, his hair is not cut for the whole of his life.

As this is a symbolic custom (as opposed to say a sacramental tradition) it can be modified according to the needs of the clergyman (say if he were to take a secular job which had particular grooming standards - as has been mentioned, for example in relation to military chaplains) or the custom of the culture in which the priest serves, or at the discretion of the ruling bishop.

Thank you Father David. I knew that there was a serious reason why priests have long hair. I presume that the same explanation is valid for beards as well.

Effie

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Thank you Father David. I knew that there was a serious reason why priests have long hair. I presume that the same explanation is valid for beards as well.

Effie

Please allow me, Father David, to join Effie in thanking your for a nice post. You highlighted something that to me is significant and has been my argument throughout this thread. Namely, that the custom of uncut/long hair is a 'symbolic custom' and not a 'sacramental tradition.' As such, this custom is not a litmus test for a priest's Orthodoxy or his observance of the Church's tradition (i.e. whether he is 'traditional').

So that my points are clear, please allow me to list some things that I am trying to say and some things I am not trying to say.

1. I am not trying to argue against priests having uncut hair; I am trying to argue that a priest is not 'untraditional' if he cuts his hair.

2. I am not trying to argue that priests having uncut hair is against the more ancient practice of the church to which we should return; I am trying to argue that priests having uncut hair is not a universal tradition of the church to which every priest should strive.

3. I am not arguing at all about beards, which in my understanding, have been worn by priests, with few exceptions in our church, throughout the ages; I am arguing that uncut hair is in a different category because of its relative 'newness' and because of the historical circumstances under which the practice arose among married clergy.

4. I would not argue against your reasoning and the symbolism with uncut hair; I would, however, point out that the symbolism you mentioned, at least in the case of married clergy, is preceded by the practice itself. In other words, the practice arose, due to historical circumstances, and the symbolism followed. To put it yet another way, I don't think that bishops sat around and thought about the symbolism and then decided to mandate uncut hair among their clergy. Rather, the practice likely began and then the symbolism gave a deeper meaning to the practice.

Finally, you made a very good point about following one's ruling bishop. Since uncut hair is a symbolic custom, a priest should not, at least as it has been explained to me, be disobedient in this manner to his ruling hierarch. Consequently, I find it very wrong for other Orthodox Christians, especially among the laity, to judge whether a priest is 'traditional' or not based upon the length of his hair. How do they know what the priest's bishop told him to do? The priest may be judged as 'untraditional,' yet he may in fact be very traditional in that he is being obedient to his hierarch, which is one of the most 'traditional' things he may do.

Fr Aaron

[Father Serafim]

I think the criticism of the laity in this regards in not simply about length of hair but the association of such practice with modernism.
I once received a blessing from a bishop dressed in a pin-striped suit, complete with goatee and cigarette holder. This was typical at the time of a disdain for tradition. The year? 1970.

[Olga]

Some Cypriot men (laymen) let their hair grow during mourning for a close relative.

... and a very old mourning custom in Greece is for men to grow beards.

[Effie Ganatsios]

... and a very old mourning custom in Greece is for men to grow beards.

Yes, Olga. The same is true up here in north Greece. For at least 40 days the male members of the immediate family remain unshaven. I presume it has something to do with the need to forego anything that has to do with vanity, as the family is in mourning for the person who has died. On the 40th day
we believe that "the soul is conducted to the habitation prepared for it, where it will stay until the Dread Judgment."

[Olga]

.... yes, the men stay unshaven for 40 days, but the women wear black for years, if not for life .... :(

[Effie Ganatsios]

.... yes, the men stay unshaven for 40 days, but the women wear black for years, if not for life .... :(

This is also changing, Olga. I don't know whether changes are good or bad.

The custom of having a wake with the deceased person in the middle of the room is also being abandoned, especially in large cities. I had never seen a dead person before coming here but I can tell you that having a wake now seems very natural to me. Children are included in the whole process and they grow up with the knowledge that death is a natural part of life. And once you have seen a dead person, have stayed up all night with them (although during the night a special cloth is placed on the face and removed with the dawn), you know absolutely and without any doubt that the body is just that - only a body. The soul has departed. This night is also valuable for those left behind. They are free all night to talk about the deceased, to talk to him as if he were still here, to start to accept that he is gone.


Effie

[Nina]

.... yes, the men stay unshaven for 40 days, but the women wear black for years, if not for life .... :(

You never know why... Someone told me that when she confessed about two abortions she had committed in her life, her spiritual father said that he wanted to give as a penance to her to dress all her life in black...

I grew up with a grandmother in black and one in dark clothes. I guess it was because of the age and modesty, like Saint Kosmas speaks about beards for men when at certain age. Also Saint Arsenios of Capadocia was reprimanding always a lady in Farasa, when she wore a head-kerchief which was not modest in color etc. I have read other examples as such. It makes me feel so guilty about my love for red.

[Olga]

I grew up with a grandmother in black and one in dark clothes. I guess it was because of the age and modesty, like Saint Kosmas speaks about beards for men when at certain age.

This is certainly true. There are (were?) even village women of a certain age who wore black or dark colours, even though there was no long-term mourning in the family (such as the death of a husband or child) which would warrant the drab clothing. Yet these women would continue to wear their black, dark grey or dark blue clothes once they were of a certain age, as they regarded it as "unseemly" to do otherwise among their peers. (Never underestimate the power of village gossips!) They would even be reluctant to wear, say, a dark blue blouse with a white or other coloured pattern in the fabric - restrained and dignified by most standards, but too "shocking" by village mores.

St Kosmas' comment on beards for men is probably as much about the association between physical (and, one would hope, emotional) maturity and the growing of facial hair. A term which comes to mind is amoustakos, meaning "he who has no whiskers", a synonym for a lad not yet old enough to be a man.

It is also worth noting that St Kosmas lived in the mid- to late 1700s, where it was almost unheard-of for a male to be clean-shaven. Greek men for centuries, up until the post-Second World War era, almost always wore a moustache, if not a beard. This practice, of course, was not confined to Greece, it was common to most European cultures, Orthodox and otherwise).

[Nina]

This is certainly true. There are (were?) even village women of a certain age who wore black or dark colours, even though there was no long-term mourning in the family (such as the death of a husband or child) which would warrant the drab clothing. Yet these women would continue to wear their black, dark grey or dark blue clothes once they were of a certain age, as they regarded it as "unseemly" to do otherwise among their peers. (Never underestimate the power of village gossips!) They would even be reluctant to wear, say, a dark blue blouse with a white or other coloured pattern in the fabric - restrained and dignified by most standards, but too "shocking" by village mores.

My grandmother who wore black lived in a capital city. I think these traditions were driven by piety. I do not usually like to be restricted in what I wear, but in our world we also have rules and traditions. One would not show up with flip-flops in an executive office for example (there is not only the danger of gossip but also termination). Although I had a couple of classmates, who sometimes showed up with pajamas for an early morning class. Now, they need to be sent in the midst of those gossiping villagers. :)



St Kosmas' comment on beards for men is probably as much about the association between physical (and, one would hope, emotional) maturity and the growing of facial hair. A term which comes to mind is amoustakos, meaning "he who has no whiskers", a synonym for a lad not yet old enough to be a man.

Yes. A man who did not have a beard was either naturally sterile, or castrated. Beard was associated with manliness and fertility.


It is also worth noting that St Kosmas lived in the mid- to late 1700s, where it was almost unheard-of for a male to be clean-shaven.

Um... why did he say it then?

[Paul Cowan]

Quotation:
St Kosmas' comment on beards for men is probably as much about the association between physical (and, one would hope, emotional) maturity and the growing of facial hair. A term which comes to mind is amoustakos, meaning "he who has no whiskers", a synonym for a lad not yet old enough to be a man.

Yes. A man who did not have a beard was either naturally sterile, or castrated. Beard was associated with manliness and fertility.

I have a moustache! Whew, I guess I don't have to worry about being spade. Or is it neutered? Either way, I think I am safe as long as I stay away from you people. ;p

[Effie Ganatsios]

I think you will be safe, Paul.

My son tried to grow a beard once. It came out tri-coloured!

His moustache was blond. The part under his lips was light brown, and the hair on the sides of his face was a light red! I would love him to be a monk, but just imagining him with a full beard is enough to make me smile.

Effie

[Matthew Alan]

I had never seen a dead person before coming here but I can tell you that having a wake now seems very natural to me. Children are included in the whole process and they grow up with the knowledge that death is a natural part of life. And once you have seen a dead person, have stayed up all night with them (although during the night a special cloth is placed on the face and removed with the dawn), you know absolutely and without any doubt that the body is just that - only a body. The soul has departed. This night is also valuable for those left behind. They are free all night to talk about the deceased, to talk to him as if he were still here, to start to accept that he is gone.

I agree that in "modern" or even "American" mourning customs seems incredibly deficient, and leave people without much resolution. I also agree that we should not shield children from death as if it does not exist.

However, I must disagree with the notion that death is "natural." Actually death is a disease which Christ is curing by His Passion and Resurrection. The body is not "only a body." The body is a part of the whole person, and the unnatural thing is for the soul and the body to be separated. This will be remedied at the resurrection of the dead, and all will be made "natural" again. If we accept that this is "only a body", then we betray our Orthodox faith. This is why we do not burn our bodies after death. It is not a mere shell; it is an intimate part of our own personhood, and it, just like our souls is being redeemed and divinized by Christ's saving grace. Our bodies are being saved, so do not consider them disposable vessels of the soul!

[Ruth Sammons]

Dear Matthew. Have you ever spent the night awake in the company of a dead person? When you have, then you will be in the position to compare your observations with Effie's.
Ruth

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

Ruth,

Matthew spoke the truth. The theological truth.

Matthew,

Effie (and Ruth) spoke the truth as well. Just a bit more of an emotional level. I'd hope people would appreciate the point of view of the other person, and not turn this into a posturing contest.

Death is natural and unnatural at the same time, just as sin is part of our (fallen) nature, and at the same time, foreign to us. It's one of the points of paradox that our faith holds.

Let's just agree to not take it out on each other, please!

Forgive me.
Monk Cyprian

[Ruth Sammons]

Thank you, Fr Cyprian. Sorry, Matthew and others.

You are right, Fr Cyprian in that truth was spoken by both Effie and Matthew.

No one was "betraying the Orthodox Faith" ... that is the phrase that brought me out of the corner, fighting.

Again, apologies,

Ruth

[Anthony G. Peggs]

so i've read some of the posts on this topic, and i am quite curious for myself. as an Orthodox lay person, who is married, has a secular job that requires short clean well kept hair and clean shaven face, are there any guidelines that i am required to follow regarding this?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am no authority, but I have not found any guidelines stronger or more definite than as modesty dictates. We do not want to be a distraction, we do not want to be a scandal. It is the attitude that takes precedence, not the appearance. The outside should reflect the inside and the inside should reflect Christ.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the Pooh

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Mr Peggs,

There are no canons that dictate such things, since, in a sense, you are describing rules that would apply outside of the Church's remit -- and the canons are chiefly intended to organise the Church's pastoral life.

As Herman has mentioned, the norms of modesty will usually suffice (though there probably have to be some caveats here, given what constitutes 'normal modesty' in some parts of our cultures today!). The only norm that is fairly consistent in application is that lay people living in the world should not adorn themselves as monastics, either in attire or in length of hair, etc.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Anthony G. Peggs]

thank you very much Father, and Herman!