The Rason, Hair, and Beard

 THE RASON, HAIR, AND BEARD

Modernism in the Clergy

Comments by Constantine Cavarnos

The following article is taken from Dr. Cavamos' excellent Greek volume Ή ’Ορθόδοξος Παράδοσις και ό Συγχρονισμός [The Orthodox Tradition and Synchronicity].

 

We come now to the subject of modernism in the clergy: the abolition of the rason (priest's cassock), cutting the hair in the manner of the laity, and shaving the beard. As with other modem innovations, these practices first appeared in the Western Church. Clean-shaven "Orthodox" Priests with trimmed hair and without the rason probably first appeared in the Greek communities of Western Europe— notably in Vienna—, and later in the United States, following the great waves of migration to the New World during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Now of late in Greece, too, there has been clamour enough on the part of the modernists, who wish to "modernize" the clergy by cutting the hair, shaving the beard, and abolishing the rason. Indeed, some Priests here have already cut their hair in a manner that wholly resembles the haircuts of the laity.

The Abolition of the Rason. With regard to the efforts put forth by some today to abolish the rason as the general, everyday dress of the Priesthood and to replace it with pants and a jacket, I have the following to say:

First of all, the rason is useful in distinguishing in a very clear manner the clergyman from the laymen, even from a great distance, and in reminding the Priest himself and those who meet him, in a vivid way, that he is a minister of the Most High. St. Basil the Great expresses this very beautifully in the following passage: "Further, it is useful to have a distinguishing mark in the clothes we wear, since they warn everyone, and declare in advance the profession of a godly life; so that those who meet us demand corresponding conduct. For the unfitting and disgraceful are not equally conspicuous in those one meets casually and those who make great professions. For one would not pay much attention to a plebeian or any other chance-comer whom one found giving or receiving blows in public, or uttering indecent words, or sitting in taverns, or doing any other unseemly things of this kind, since one would take such conduct as being consistent with the whole purpose of his life. But when a man has professed strictness, if he neglects his duty in the smallest particular, all men reproach him, doing as it is written —'they will turn and rend you.' So this profession by means of apparel forms a kind of discipline for the weaker brethren, so that even against their will they are kept from faults. As therefore the soldier has a distinguishing dress, the senator another, some one else another, from which their rank as a rule may be guessed, so also it is becoming and appropriate that a Christian should be distinguished by his clothing which keeps the sobriety handed down by the apostle." [1] Even though St. Basil addresses himself to monks, these observations of his apply to clergymen in general and are in accord with the 27th Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, which orders: "Let not one of those ranked among the clergy dress inappropriately, whether while residing in the city or walking on the streets, but let him wear that garb already assigned to those ranked among the clergy." [2]

With its modest, hieratic form, the rason evokes reverence in those who look on the Priest. And being himself continually reminded of his spiritual office, it makes the Priest more circumspect in his behavior —is a kind of discipline safeguarding him from faults, as St. Basil observes. By contrast, pants and a jacket proclaim nothing special, no kind of office at all. Such dress is not noted for its modesty or sanctity, nor does it remind one of anything special.

The wonderful effect produced by the rason, as much upon the clergy as upon the laity, was noted with great discernment by the English theologian Richard Littledale, as we see in a passage of his book The Holy Eastern Church, in which he says about the Greek clergy: "With all their simplicity of habits, there is a peculiar calm and dignity in their manners and appearance, which is very striking: they never seem to forget their priestly character and responsibility, even as they never, on any occasion whatever, lay aside the priestly robes; they are always to be seen with the dark flowing garments, high cap, and black crape veil, which, from time immemorial, have been their appointed costume, moving along with an aspect of unworldly repose which seems involuntarily to command respect from all." [3]

The modernists, or "innovators," who want to abolish the rason, ignore this very important spiritual, religious side of the matter, making their judgments on supposed aesthetic criteria. They say that they are disgusted by the ugliness of the rason. So, they wish to abolish it, since it is, according to their tastes, "ugly." Fotis Kontoglou answers this argument very well. First of all, he says that, with regard to things of the Church, "there are no aesthetics according to worldly tastes; that is good and beautiful which is decorous and modest, that which is appropriate to the spiritual office of the Priest.... The attire and appearance of the clergy should indicate their spiritual office." [4] Secondly, the rason covers the possible aesthetic defects of the Priest: crooked feet, long hands, the large belly, the hunch on the back, and so on.... "All are dressed with propriety and spiritual dignity." [5]

Aside from the religious and aesthetic aspect of the matter, there is an ethnic one, which is ignored by the modernists. Here, Kontoglou speaks again very tellingly: "The rason," he says, "reminds the people of their history, their sacrifices, their sufferings, and their joys, and thus the rason comforts them, giving them confidence, faith, conviction, trust, and love for their nation." [6]

Cutting the Hair. Regarding the hair, the modernists, who want the clergy to cut their hair short, as it is customary for laymen to cut their hair in our days, think that they have an unshakable argument for this in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 14: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" The verb "κομάω" is translated "have long hair." But this is only a part of its meaning. Additionally, it means "to dress, or adorn, the hair." As for the length of the hair, we cannot deduce from this passage that clergymen should cut their hair short in the modem style of laymen, leaving the nape of the neck uncovered. What the passage obviously condemns is for men in general —not specifically clergymen— to leave their hair completely uncut, so that it falls far down the back, as women sometimes do, or to dress or adorn their hair. The meaning of the passage can be found in the "Apostolic Constitutions" and in the interpretation given by Zonaras to the 96th Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod. The Apostolic Constitutions say: "That beauty which God by nature has bestowed on thee, do not further beautify; but modestly diminish it before men. Thus do not permit the hair of thy head to grow too long." [7] Zonaras says that the 96th Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod excommunicates men who do not cut their hair at all, but deliberately let it fall down to the belt, in the style of women, as well as those who dye it, or who style it with reeds so as to make it curly, or who wear hairpieces. [8] For clergymen to allow their hair to grow long enough to cover the nape of the neck is not forbidden by the passage which we have cited from the Apostle Paul, nor by the Apostolic Constitutions, nor by Canons. This is in keeping with the older extant Icons of Christ, in which the God-Man and "Great Archpriest," as St. Paul calls him [9], is depicted with hair falling down to his shoulders.

Let our clergy, then, not heed the modernists, who would have them become imitators of the laity and of heterodox clergymen, but let them remain imitators of Christ, in keeping with the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, who says: "Be ye followers [imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ." [10]

Shaving the Beard. The modernists, who wish to cast the Orthodox in the image of non-Orthodox, argue against beards that they are ugly and unclean. They clearly ignore the religious aspect of the issue, which is essential. I will therefore first speak of this aspect, and then answer their arguments, which are supposedly based on aesthetic and health considerations.

There are passages in written tradition, clearly put forth in the Old Testament, which forbid shaving of the beard. The most pointed is the following, from Leviticus: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests and the sons of Aaron, and say unto them..., neither shall they shave off the comer of their beard." [11] Here God, through the Prophet Moses, gives a command that the priests not cut their beards. In the New Testament, there is no reference to the beard; however, the Apostolic Constitutions and very old icons testily that the custom of clergymen remaining unshaved continued into Apostolic times. The Apostolic Constitutions say: "One must not destroy the hair of his chin, and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the law says: Ye shall not mar your beards." [12]

The importance of the beard from a spiritual and ecclesiastical perspective lies in the fact that the beard evokes reverence. The great Teacher of the Nation, Equal-to-the Apostles, and Hieromartyr Kosmas Aitolos agreed wholly with this, as is obvious in his Teachings. He says: "If there happens to be a man thirty years old who has not shaved his beard, and another man fifty, sixty, or even one hundred years of age, put the one who has a beard in a place of higher honor than the one who shaves, in the Church as well as at the table." [13]

But the modernists, as I have said, ignore this, which is essential, retreating into arguments about aesthetics and health in order to condemn the beard. From an aesthetic standpoint, they say that the beard is ugly, repulsive. But this contention does not stand. No one can seriously claim that the ancient Greeks lacked aesthetic sensibility. On the contrary, they are known to the whole world as the worshippers par excellence of beauty. Yet they wore beards, something which bears witness to the fact that they did not consider them ugly. Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Miltiades, Themistocles, Pericles, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Hippocrates are all depicted with beards, similar to today's priests in Greece. Let us also note that the philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the "fathers" of aesthetics!

The beards of Orthodox clergymen are ugly only to those who are predisposed to oppose them, for they are ignorant as much of things of the Orthodox Faith as they are of aesthetics. Guileless reverent people of God do not find the beard ugly and do not abhor those who wear beards. With reverence, contrition, and love, men and women of God bow and kiss the hand of bearded clergy, and make their Cross before and kiss the Icons of the bearded God-Man, the bearded Prophets, Apostles, Monastic Saints, and other Holy Persons. Nor are children repulsed by beards, even in a country like America, where bearded clergymen are very rare. One of the most beloved personages among the small children of America is Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, with his full, totally white beard, who comes (as the parents tell them) each year on Christmas eve to give gifts to them. Children love to see those who imitate him —that is, men dressed in (what is for them) his characteristic garb and with a big beard. So true are the words of the Lord: "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." [14]

With regard to the argument about health considerations, that the beard is unclean, it is sufficient for me to say that this shows amazing superficiality. In keeping with this argument, all of the ancient Greeks whom we have mentioned must have had an unclean countenance, and similarly the Prophets, Apostles, and all the Saints! Indeed, what superficiality, what impiety, what blasphemy!

 

NOTES

1. Migne. I Hi., 31, 980. English text in W.K.L. Clarke (trans.), The Ascetic Works of St. Basil, London, 1925, p. 189.

2. Rudder, Chicago, 1957, p. 319.

3. Littledale, R., The Holy Eastern Church, London, 1870, p. 69.

4. ’Ορθόδοξος Τύπος, 10 August 1969.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., 1 and 20 September 1969.

7. P.G., op. cit., 1, 564.

8. Rudder, op. cit., p. 403.

9. Hebrews 4:14.

10.1 Corinthians, 11:1 11.21; 1 and 5; cf. 19:27.

12. P.G., op. cit., 1, 565, 568.

13. [Metropolitan] Augustinos Kantiotis, Ό 'Άγιος Κοσμάς ό Αίτο- λός, Athens, 1959, ρ. 86.

14. St. Matthew 18:3.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 5 (1988), No. 2, pp. 41-45.