Marty Ballestero doesn't LIKE facial hair on men!!

[MissBrattified]

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction. :girlytantrum

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/27/i-dont-like-facial-hair-on-pentecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress. :foottap:foottap:foottap:foottap

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument. It's simple regurgitation of the old, tired, "hippie movement" argument, with minimal effort at relabeling for a new decade. Now it's mainly that it comes with an "attitude", and "don't even get me started on tattoos", because obviously facial hair on men and tattoos go hand in hand. (Although the former is NATURAL and latter is an unnatural, permanent alteration of the human body. That doesn't matter at all, though.) :blink

FYI, MB used zero scriptural support for his opinions. That's really only notable because we all know that if he had scripture to throw around, he would have definitely bombed us with it. It isn't surprising, though. Since when do we need scripture to make people feel inferior? :coffee2

I plodded through this bit by bit last night, while I was trying to stay awake waiting on laundry to finish. Most of MB's blog excerpts are bolded below, with my comments following:

Point #1: "I don't like facial hair on pentecostal men."

I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?" but that seems flippant. :hmmm Here's the deal: I don't particularly LIKE Crocs. You know--those uber-practical but super ugly waterproof rubber shoes that some people adore? Yeah. The fact that I don't like them doesn't make them WRONG for anyone, especially in the "That's a SIN" sense, so it pretty much stops with me having an opinion and that. is. all. I also don't LIKE BBQ all that much, which is quite a problem since my husband is a Magnificent BBQ Chef and calling THAT a sin would probably lead to a split right down the center of our household.

Bottom line: Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with "sin" and "not sin" or even "beneficial/expedient" or "not beneficial/not expedient." For the amateurs out there, using the beneficial/expedient loophole is the pretty way of saying "I would prefer you not to do ______ simply because I don't like it. Based on the Apostle Paul's relevant comments, I have clearance to call it 'not expedient' and get away with bossing you around."

Point #2: Did They Have Facial Hair In Bible Days? Yes.

Well. Thanks for summing that up for us, MB. Nicely done. Next. No, wait--not so fast. There's more and it's better.

"...The wearing of beards was certainly mentioned in the Bible. The case could be made that most of our heroes in the Old Testament wore facial hair.

Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures.

However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear.

Many Hispanic and black men feel that wearing a mustache is symbolic of masculinity. So automatically the cultural thing is throw down like an non-debatable subject. Of course that debate ignores the church’s culture."

Hmm. Consider this opening paragraph:
"Look at the sculptures of Roman times. Look again at the statues of the Caesars. They depict Gentile men wearing short hair, and no beards. They were the style leaders of their day. They depicted the dress of their generation. Evidently the world custom at that was not beard wearing for all men, especially not Gentile men."

We can assume that MB is going to make the leap that current "church culture" is akin to the ancient Roman/Greek culture and that makes it okay to ban beards. Or some such mess. Unfortunately, he exposes one of the many holes in his own arguments with this: "Evidently the world custom at that [time?]...."

Excuse me, Sir, but are you attempting to argue against the allegedly worldly custom of beard-wearing by pointing out how it was the worldly custom of Romans/Greeks (aka, Gentiles) in New Testament times? Do I really need to point out how illogical that is? :blink E.g., It is NOT okay to model your face after worldly customs of the present day, but it IS okay to model your face after worldly customs so long as they are ancient.

There's also another glaring problem here, in which MB reveals that he marks no distinction between church culture and white culture. When he points out that Hispanic and black men argue "culture" when it comes to facial hair and then says that the debate ignores "church culture", he means that he considers Hispanics and black churches to be separate from mainstream church culture. He may not have meant to say that, but it is certainly what he DID say.

Point #3: My Question Is, Why The Facial Hair Comeback?

Why now? Can we get some clarity here? It appears that for awhile there was a TREND of men being clean-shaven, and now that it's trying to fade, some ministers are trying to bring it back. [TIC]

What for? What for? That's like asking, "Why do you grow your eyebrows out? What for?" :blink

What is gained in the Spirit by men wearing facial hair? What is gained in the Spirit by men shaving their faces?

How is the church strengthened by that acceptance? How is the church weakened by that acceptance?

Do Pentecostal men wear them because it’s popular in the world? Seriously? I see secular men every day who are clean shaven! Why, then, is it only called “worldly” or “popular in the world” if you want to have facial hair? Let's cherry pick what's worldly so it fits with the list of things we want to allow. Consistency be kicked to the curb.

How does it further outreach? Dear Lord. Have mercy. I can’t take the senseless questions.

Why did our new converts shave their beards and mustaches off when they got the Holy Ghost?

Simple: Because they wanted to look like everyone else at church, and they conformed. It doesn’t mean God spoke to them or they had a divine revelation or that HE convicted them. It means one of two things: Either they felt CONDEMNED by people around them who indicated they needed to shave OR it was silent peer pressure. That’s it. It wasn’t a God thing or else it would be backed up with scripture like every other doctrine we preach and teach. Right? We do our best to stick to scripture after the manner of real Apostolics...right? RIGHT? :foottap

[Cont.]

[MissBrattified]

Point #4: Why the long absence of facial hair in conservative Pentecostal Apostolic ranks? (and other annoying questions)

Well, that would be because of platform guidelines, local church rules, pastoral preferences and even organizational-wide rules against it. Sometimes, it was even because ministers preached that you would go to hell for having facial hair. I know firsthand; I’ve been at those conferences. Some of the guest speakers also preached that you would go to hell for holding a membership card with any man-made organization, which is ironic since they don’t mind preaching man-made rules and making them equal to God. Believe it or not, Pentecostals like to obey their pastors, and they do obey them—more than you might think. The thing is, they’re just doing what they’re told in many cases; it’s not about the personal convictions of saints. It’s about saints following the convictions or preferences of their pastors. When they stop being told to do it, they’ll move on, because it was NEVER a GOD THING; it was a MAN[made] thing.

Btw, I'm not saying that saints being obedient is a bad thing; not at all. I'm saying Heaven help the minister who takes advantage of meekness to get his own way.

If it was deemed wrong then, why is it ok now? I don’t know. Maybe the same way that some preachers deemed “radio” wrong at one point, but pretty much EVERYONE has moved on and decided that’s no longer necessary. Funny how you’re not allowed to reverse the logic. “If it was deemed okay then, why is it bad now?”


Point #5: If Facial Hair Today Is So Proper, Why Then Does It Cause Men Of Honor To Distance Themselves From All Those Who Permit Such? Why Then Does It Separate Good Men? There’s A Reason!

Super Elitist Assumption Alert: the men who are distancing themselves from other CHRISTIAN men over facial hair are the “men of honor.” YES, there’s a reason for that separation. It’s called “not loving your brother”, “seditions” and “thinking of yourself more highly than you ought.” Here's a scripturally-backed reminder: We're supposed to separate ourselves from the world; not from our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Oh, yay. More questions. :blink I’ll paraphrase:

What are you beard wearers trying to prove? Don’t you look like your old “unsaved” self with your facial hair?

Assumption: That beard wearers are trying to prove a point, and that they aren’t simply being masculine, which is a God-given, innate quality to be appreciated and encouraged—especially by any movement truly interested in gender distinction. Apparently gender distinction issues are only important as they relate to women.

Other assumption: That the beard wearers are reverting. Guys, beware; if you start wearing that Grey Flannel, we’ll assume you’re going back to your sinner roots. Don’t you want to leave that junk in the past? Acqua Di Gio or nothing, boys. That’s the only cologne making it through the pearly gates.

Here’s another confusing point (#Something). MB says, “If We Took A Poll And Asked Pentecostal Men Why They Are Wearing Beards, What Would Be Their Response To:”

He then proceeds to ask them (hypothetical questions and answers I assume) if they are going charismatic, backslid, in rebellion, or wearing facial hair because they think it makes them look cool. MB has answered all the questions with “No.” MB accepts the first three no’s (I’m thinking reluctantly) and disputes the fourth one—even though he answered question #4 with a hypothetical negative. My brain is pretty much spinning at this point….

Anyhoo. MB follows up his illogical question and answer session with this: “Does your facial hair tell others that you have a flaming pride issue?” “If you don’t think pride is involved in wearing of facial hair, just try to preach it off of those who have it. Every wearer I’ve met is fiercely defensive.”

Surprise, surprise. People get defensive when you cross personal boundaries, especially when it’s for no good reason, other than you don’t “like it.” I mean, if you can show me somewhere that GOD doesn’t want me to wear deodorant, I’ll try to make do with baby powder, but otherwise I am going to cover up that all-naturale underarm sweat and it’s really no one else’s business. At least, it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business. People are going to get annoyed when you ask them to make personal sacrifices for YOU. They might not get annoyed with GOD over it, although it might be on their “I’m going to ask Him about this when I get to Heaven” list, but they will get annoyed with you. Trust me, if you start demanding that I don’t wear deodorant, I’m going to get annoyed and that doesn’t make me rebellious or mean I have a Flaming Pride Issue. It means I have a “I Sweat Like A Boy” issue and “Thank God I Was Born In the 21st Century Of Effective Deodorants” attitude.

Point #7 (Maybe?):

“(I don’t understand this generation’s interest in tattoos or facial hair. Don’t even get me started on tattoos…)
Thanks, I feel better now! You will too… after you go shave!”

:hmmm MB stated that facial hair was common in Bible days, with our Bible heroes, early Pentecostal men, in the 60’s and 70’s and yet he is saying this is about “this generation’s” interest in…facial hair? It's old--really old--but new again? The contradictions are mind-boggling. Okay, not really. They're just annoying. Calculus is mind-boggling.

Some of my questions are:


Why would any minister want to use his platform and God-granted influence with the saints of God over something so trivial and divisive?
Do ministers really believe this is what God called them to do? To sow seeds of sedition? To slap down valid complaints regarding gender distinction, masculinity and culture because they doesn't fit the church culture/Apostolic Identity those ministers have in mind?
What if GOD has in mind an Apostolic body of believers whose identity has everything to do with being filled with the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus?
What if that identity is the one that brings us together, and we don't have to morph people into some white, European "look" in order for them to fit into HIS Church?
What if we aren't really supposed to be looking to ancient Gentiles for their style leadership?
What if "style" has nothing to do with the Church at all?
What if God envisions a church that is diverse in culture but unified by His name?
What if facial hair doesn't matter and you make it matter and miss the mark?
What if scripture matters and teaching doctrines that are extra-biblical displeases God? Does that matter?

[ILG]

I never did agree with this stance, even in my ultra-con days....

[MissBrattified]

I never did agree with this stance, even in my ultra-con days....

Ugh! It just makes me want to do this: :girlytantrum:girlytantrum:girlytantrum

So stinkin' petty and ridiculous.

[n david]

I take it he's not a fan of Phil Robertson or Duck Dynasty?

:lol

[FlamingZword]

Unlike him I will not call into question Mr. Martyn salvation
I simply point out that God accepts idiots in his kingdom for Mr. Martyn is a first class idiot.

[Rose]

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction. :girlytantrum

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/27/i-dont-like-facial-hair-on-pentecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress. :foottap:foottap:foottap:foottap

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument.

Ditto...just had this same conversation with a very young couple. They stopped attending at UPC because the church allowed goatee and or beards on the platform. Very disappointed that this is still an issue in some churches.

[navygoat1998]

I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal women.:largehalo

[ILG]

It would be more sensible to teach women not to shave their legs than men to shave their face. And they could say "Doth not nature itself teach you?"

[Praxeas]

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction. :girlytantrum

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/27/i-dont-like-facial-hair-on-pentecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress. :foottap:foottap:foottap:foottap

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument. It's simple regurgitation of the old, tired, "hippie movement" argument, with minimal effort at relabeling for a new decade. Now it's mainly that it comes with an "attitude", and "don't even get me started on tattoos", because obviously facial hair on men and tattoos go hand in hand. (Although the former is NATURAL and latter is an unnatural, permanent alteration of the human body. That doesn't matter at all, though.) :blink

FYI, MB used zero scriptural support for his opinions. That's really only notable because we all know that if he had scripture to throw around, he would have definitely bombed us with it. It isn't surprising, though. Since when do we need scripture to make people feel inferior? :coffee2

I plodded through this bit by bit last night, while I was trying to stay awake waiting on laundry to finish. Most of MB's blog excerpts are bolded below, with my comments following:

Point #1: "I don't like facial hair on pentecostal men."

I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?" but that seems flippant. :hmmm Here's the deal: I don't particularly LIKE Crocs. You know--those uber-practical but super ugly waterproof rubber shoes that some people adore? Yeah. The fact that I don't like them doesn't make them WRONG for anyone, especially in the "That's a SIN" sense, so it pretty much stops with me having an opinion and that. is. all. I also don't LIKE BBQ all that much, which is quite a problem since my husband is a Magnificent BBQ Chef and calling THAT a sin would probably lead to a split right down the center of our household.

Bottom line: Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with "sin" and "not sin" or even "beneficial/expedient" or "not beneficial/not expedient." For the amateurs out there, using the beneficial/expedient loophole is the pretty way of saying "I would prefer you not to do ______ simply because I don't like it. Based on the Apostle Paul's relevant comments, I have clearance to call it 'not expedient' and get away with bossing you around."

Point #2: Did They Have Facial Hair In Bible Days? Yes.

Well. Thanks for summing that up for us, MB. Nicely done. Next. No, wait--not so fast. There's more and it's better.

"...The wearing of beards was certainly mentioned in the Bible. The case could be made that most of our heroes in the Old Testament wore facial hair.

Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures.

However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear.

Many Hispanic and black men feel that wearing a mustache is symbolic of masculinity. So automatically the cultural thing is throw down like an non-debatable subject. Of course that debate ignores the church’s culture."

Hmm. Consider this opening paragraph:
"Look at the sculptures of Roman times. Look again at the statues of the Caesars. They depict Gentile men wearing short hair, and no beards. They were the style leaders of their day. They depicted the dress of their generation. Evidently the world custom at that was not beard wearing for all men, especially not Gentile men."

We can assume that MB is going to make the leap that current "church culture" is akin to the ancient Roman/Greek culture and that makes it okay to ban beards. Or some such mess. Unfortunately, he exposes one of the many holes in his own arguments with this: "Evidently the world custom at that [time?]...."

Excuse me, Sir, but are you attempting to argue against the allegedly worldly custom of beard-wearing by pointing out how it was the worldly custom of Romans/Greeks (aka, Gentiles) in New Testament times? Do I really need to point out how illogical that is? :blink E.g., It is NOT okay to model your face after worldly customs of the present day, but it IS okay to model your face after worldly customs so long as they are ancient.

There's also another glaring problem here, in which MB reveals that he marks no distinction between church culture and white culture. When he points out that Hispanic and black men argue "culture" when it comes to facial hair and then says that the debate ignores "church culture", he means that he considers Hispanics and black churches to be separate from mainstream church culture. He may not have meant to say that, but it is certainly what he DID say.

Point #3: My Question Is, Why The Facial Hair Comeback?

Why now? Can we get some clarity here? It appears that for awhile there was a TREND of men being clean-shaven, and now that it's trying to fade, some ministers are trying to bring it back. [TIC]

What for? What for? That's like asking, "Why do you grow your eyebrows out? What for?" :blink

What is gained in the Spirit by men wearing facial hair? What is gained in the Spirit by men shaving their faces?

How is the church strengthened by that acceptance? How is the church weakened by that acceptance?

Do Pentecostal men wear them because it’s popular in the world? Seriously? I see secular men every day who are clean shaven! Why, then, is it only called “worldly” or “popular in the world” if you want to have facial hair? Let's cherry pick what's worldly so it fits with the list of things we want to allow. Consistency be kicked to the curb.

How does it further outreach? Dear Lord. Have mercy. I can’t take the senseless questions.

Why did our new converts shave their beards and mustaches off when they got the Holy Ghost?

Simple: Because they wanted to look like everyone else at church, and they conformed. It doesn’t mean God spoke to them or they had a divine revelation or that HE convicted them. It means one of two things: Either they felt CONDEMNED by people around them who indicated they needed to shave OR it was silent peer pressure. That’s it. It wasn’t a God thing or else it would be backed up with scripture like every other doctrine we preach and teach. Right? We do our best to stick to scripture after the manner of real Apostolics...right? RIGHT? :foottap

[Cont.]
His entire argument is full of holes and logical fallacies and no scripture at all

It's another sad case of someone desperately trying to support their views and not having scriptures to do it with

[Michael The Disciple]

It keeps good spirit baptized men from believing Oneness Pentecostal Ministers have anything to offer. If they are wrong on such an EASY issue how could they be right about anything else?

That and the "if women trim their hair its a sin" has caused multitudes to utterly reject Oneness truth.

Heck I AM ONENESS and I cant find a Church worth going to!

By the way, who is Marty?

[Praxeas]

It keeps good spirit baptized men from believing Oneness Pentecostal Ministers have anything to offer. If they are wrong on such an EASY issue how could they be right about anything else?

That and the "if women trim their hair its a sin" has caused multitudes to utterly reject Oneness truth.

Heck I AM ONENESS and I cant find a Church worth going to!

By the way, who is Marty?
You don't know Marty? Why he's the coolest cat ever!
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/S1i5coU-0_Q/maxresdefault.jpg

[Pressing-On]

I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal women.:largehalo

Don't be messin' with my mustache now! :smack :heeheehee

[CC1]

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction. :girlytantrum

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/27/i-dont-like-facial-hair-on-pentecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress. :foottap:foottap:foottap:foottap

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument. It's simple regurgitation of the old, tired, "hippie movement" argument, with minimal effort at relabeling for a new decade. Now it's mainly that it comes with an "attitude", and "don't even get me started on tattoos", because obviously facial hair on men and tattoos go hand in hand. (Although the former is NATURAL and latter is an unnatural, permanent alteration of the human body. That doesn't matter at all, though.) :blink

FYI, MB used zero scriptural support for his opinions. That's really only notable because we all know that if he had scripture to throw around, he would have definitely bombed us with it. It isn't surprising, though. Since when do we need scripture to make people feel inferior? :coffee2

I plodded through this bit by bit last night, while I was trying to stay awake waiting on laundry to finish. Most of MB's blog excerpts are bolded below, with my comments following:

Point #1: "I don't like facial hair on pentecostal men."

I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?" but that seems flippant. :hmmm Here's the deal: I don't particularly LIKE Crocs. You know--those uber-practical but super ugly waterproof rubber shoes that some people adore? Yeah. The fact that I don't like them doesn't make them WRONG for anyone, especially in the "That's a SIN" sense, so it pretty much stops with me having an opinion and that. is. all. I also don't LIKE BBQ all that much, which is quite a problem since my husband is a Magnificent BBQ Chef and calling THAT a sin would probably lead to a split right down the center of our household.

Bottom line: Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with "sin" and "not sin" or even "beneficial/expedient" or "not beneficial/not expedient." For the amateurs out there, using the beneficial/expedient loophole is the pretty way of saying "I would prefer you not to do ______ simply because I don't like it. Based on the Apostle Paul's relevant comments, I have clearance to call it 'not expedient' and get away with bossing you around."

Point #2: Did They Have Facial Hair In Bible Days? Yes.

Well. Thanks for summing that up for us, MB. Nicely done. Next. No, wait--not so fast. There's more and it's better.

"...The wearing of beards was certainly mentioned in the Bible. The case could be made that most of our heroes in the Old Testament wore facial hair.

Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures.

However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear.

Many Hispanic and black men feel that wearing a mustache is symbolic of masculinity. So automatically the cultural thing is throw down like an non-debatable subject. Of course that debate ignores the church’s culture."

Hmm. Consider this opening paragraph:
"Look at the sculptures of Roman times. Look again at the statues of the Caesars. They depict Gentile men wearing short hair, and no beards. They were the style leaders of their day. They depicted the dress of their generation. Evidently the world custom at that was not beard wearing for all men, especially not Gentile men."

We can assume that MB is going to make the leap that current "church culture" is akin to the ancient Roman/Greek culture and that makes it okay to ban beards. Or some such mess. Unfortunately, he exposes one of the many holes in his own arguments with this: "Evidently the world custom at that [time?]...."

Excuse me, Sir, but are you attempting to argue against the allegedly worldly custom of beard-wearing by pointing out how it was the worldly custom of Romans/Greeks (aka, Gentiles) in New Testament times? Do I really need to point out how illogical that is? :blink E.g., It is NOT okay to model your face after worldly customs of the present day, but it IS okay to model your face after worldly customs so long as they are ancient.

There's also another glaring problem here, in which MB reveals that he marks no distinction between church culture and white culture. When he points out that Hispanic and black men argue "culture" when it comes to facial hair and then says that the debate ignores "church culture", he means that he considers Hispanics and black churches to be separate from mainstream church culture. He may not have meant to say that, but it is certainly what he DID say.

Point #3: My Question Is, Why The Facial Hair Comeback?

Why now? Can we get some clarity here? It appears that for awhile there was a TREND of men being clean-shaven, and now that it's trying to fade, some ministers are trying to bring it back. [TIC]

What for? What for? That's like asking, "Why do you grow your eyebrows out? What for?" :blink

What is gained in the Spirit by men wearing facial hair? What is gained in the Spirit by men shaving their faces?

How is the church strengthened by that acceptance? How is the church weakened by that acceptance?

Do Pentecostal men wear them because it’s popular in the world? Seriously? I see secular men every day who are clean shaven! Why, then, is it only called “worldly” or “popular in the world” if you want to have facial hair? Let's cherry pick what's worldly so it fits with the list of things we want to allow. Consistency be kicked to the curb.

How does it further outreach? Dear Lord. Have mercy. I can’t take the senseless questions.

Why did our new converts shave their beards and mustaches off when they got the Holy Ghost?

Simple: Because they wanted to look like everyone else at church, and they conformed. It doesn’t mean God spoke to them or they had a divine revelation or that HE convicted them. It means one of two things: Either they felt CONDEMNED by people around them who indicated they needed to shave OR it was silent peer pressure. That’s it. It wasn’t a God thing or else it would be backed up with scripture like every other doctrine we preach and teach. Right? We do our best to stick to scripture after the manner of real Apostolics...right? RIGHT? :foottap

[Cont.]

Yup. It seems that every time UPCer's like yourself, Hoovie, and Ferd have just about convinced yourself the UPC has become more moderate, logical, and biblical you come face to face with something like this that is a flashback to the decades I spent UPC!

[Praxeas]

Yup. It seems that every time UPCer's like yourself, Hoovie, and Ferd have just about convinced yourself the UPC has become more moderate, logical, and biblical you come face to face with something like this that is a flashback to the decades I spent UPC!
He isn't UPC

[n david]

Yup. It seems that every time UPCer's like yourself, Hoovie, and Ferd have just about convinced yourself the UPC has become more moderate, logical, and biblical you come face to face with something like this that is a flashback to the decades I spent UPC!


He isn't UPC
Wups! :lol

[Praxeas]

I may be wrong but I thought he left with the other guys

[Carl]

Many years ago we heard one preacher say that God gave men whiskers to see if they are man enough to shave. I gave myself a few nicks as a teen trying to prove my manliness!

[CC1]

I may be wrong but I thought he left with the other guys

That would explain things then!

[FlamingZword]

Many years ago we heard one preacher say that God gave men whiskers to see if they are man enough to shave. I gave myself a few nicks as a teen trying to prove my manliness!

Well I guess Aaron the High priest and David the King were wimps.
Jeremiah was not man enough to shave, only to stand up to a wicked king.

[CC1]

Wups! :lol

LOL!!! I should have recognized that name as a member of the World Wide Wrestling Pentecostal Fellowship. I have seen it before.

[bkstokes]

It keeps good spirit baptized men from believing Oneness Pentecostal Ministers have anything to offer. If they are wrong on such an EASY issue how could they be right about anything else?

That and the "if women trim their hair its a sin" has caused multitudes to utterly reject Oneness truth.

Heck I AM ONENESS and I cant find a Church worth going to!

By the way, who is Marty?

Michael, I am also oneness and have lived in several cities since I left UPC. I also have yet to find a oneness church that does not follow after such traditions of men or if it doesn't - then goes of the map with the craziness of the charismatics.

What church do you go to?

[Abiding Now]

He isn't UPC

MB was in the AMF for years, but got out and joined the UPC back in the 90s.

[Michael The Disciple]

Michael, I am also oneness and have lived in several cities since I left UPC. I also have yet to find a oneness church that does not follow after such traditions of men or if it doesn't - then goes of the map with the craziness of the charismatics.

What church do you go to?

Well I hate to say it but I don't attend a local Church. I do believe in the local Church and was an Elder/Pastor for 13 years. For over 10 years until recently I met as a teacher with a group on a voice active chat program Palktalk.com

Last year we did try a local UPC Church. Same old "standards". Added together with pre trib rapture and no vision I could not do it.

I visited an Assembly Of God Church about a month ago on the basis they teach the post trib rapture. Don't see much future for a dogmatic Oneness Pentecostal there! Nonetheless I may visit there occasionally to have something to do.

I am still meeting with various groups of believers on Paltalk. It is there that I have ministered to far more people than anywhere else.

I yet have hope that before I die I will find a solid New Testament Church. How are you making it?

[Praxeas]

MB was in the AMF for years, but got out and joined the UPC back in the 90s.

I don't think he is UPC anymore

[Roxanne Murphy]

I can give names of current licensed and ordained UPC preachers who believe and preach this same stuff. And while they will tell you the Bible doesn't actually speak negatively about facial hair on men, they still say it is associated with rebellion, worldliness, and thus a focus for 'true apostolic preachers' to keep worldliness out of the church.

[Michael The Disciple]

Now and then you hear about Oneness groups that are ok with beards. Usually turns out as long as you stay off the "platform".

[Fionn mac Cumh]

I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal women.:largehalo

do you have any scripture for that?:heeheehee

Seriously though, the facial hair police in churches is ludicrous. Is he going to freak out when he gets to heaven and sees bearded men?

[Rudy]

Read the comments on the blog--LOL. Just as crazy!

[bkstokes]

Well I hate to say it but I don't attend a local Church. I do believe in the local Church and was an Elder/Pastor for 13 years. For over 10 years until recently I met as a teacher with a group on a voice active chat program Palktalk.com

Last year we did try a local UPC Church. Same old "standards". Added together with pre trib rapture and no vision I could not do it.

I visited an Assembly Of God Church about a month ago on the basis they teach the post trib rapture. Don't see much future for a dogmatic Oneness Pentecostal there! Nonetheless I may visit there occasionally to have something to do.

I am still meeting with various groups of believers on Paltalk. It is there that I have ministered to far more people than anywhere else.

I yet have hope that before I die I will find a solid New Testament Church. How are you making it?

I have tried several options. Over 5 years ago I attended an AOG church that often had spirit baptisms and had a really good men's Sunday school class. I told the assistant pastor that I was oneness and they put me on the black list. After that they were very guarded. I have many young kids, so I want them to have Sunday school interaction. Thus, we go to a large non denominational church, but I am not actively involved.

[Charnock]

It's nice that MissB focuses her passion on something other than UPC bashers for a change. Except...wait for it...Ballestero bashes the UPC in his blog. Perhaps that's why she is so riled.

Truth is, this is just one of dozens of issues that are nothing more than personal preferences. So long as the UPC holds to those issues MissB will marginalize anyone who speaks negatively about those who preach them. The moment the UPC lets them go it's open season on anyone who maintains those same positions.

Color me unimpressed. Save your rage for more more important issues.

[CC1]

Color me unimpressed. Save your rage for more more important issues.

"Rage"? You must be reading different posts than I read. I think you have hurt the credibility of your post by this overreaction.

[ILG]

I can give names of current licensed and ordained UPC preachers who believe and preach this same stuff. And while they will tell you the Bible doesn't actually speak negatively about facial hair on men, they still say it is associated with rebellion, worldliness, and thus a focus for 'true apostolic preachers' to keep worldliness out of the church.

My old pastor called a trimmed beard a "trimmed up spirit of rebellion"! That was many years ago.

[oneinkhorn]

Men With Facial Hair:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/William_seymour.png/150px-William_seymour.png

http://www.revival-library.org/images/pensketches/parham.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5NVdRegyL_8/SPFf9uei6DI/AAAAAAAAAVo/BYhKb9qOEhM/s400/bartleman.jpg

http://www.apostolicarchives.com/i/Hall%20of%20Fame/34.jpg

[Michael The Disciple]

Truth is, this is just one of dozens of issues that are nothing more than personal preferences.

What? Are you kidding? Personal issue? Beards are always in a positive light in the Bible with nothing negative. It IS considered a SIN in the OT if one cuts their beard.

If "Apostolics" can preach its a sin for women to wear pants based on Duet. 22:5 why would it not be a sin to cut ones beard based on Leviticus 19:27?

Its been TOTAL HYPOCRISY for decades now and caused many to stumble.

[Praxeas]

Now and then you hear about Oneness groups that are ok with beards. Usually turns out as long as you stay off the "platform".
the reason for that often is because they don't want grief from the other Oneness churches over it

[Michael The Disciple]

the reason for that often is because they don't want grief from the other Oneness churches over it

True they are men pleasers.

[MissBrattified]

It's nice that MissB focuses her passion on something other than UPC bashers for a change. Except...wait for it...Ballestero bashes the UPC in his blog. Perhaps that's why she is so riled. Truth is, this is just one of dozens of issues that are nothing more than personal preferences. So long as the UPC holds to those issues MissB will marginalize anyone who speaks negatively about those who preach them. The moment the UPC lets them go it's open season on anyone who maintains those same positions. Color me unimpressed. Save your rage for more more important issues.

Oh, Charnock. You are trying too hard. :rolleyes2

Two things you should know:

1. I don't know if Martyn Ballestero is licensed with the UPC or not--or whether or not he used to be.
2. I didn't see where he attacked the UPC in the facial hair blog post and therefore that could not have possibly been the catalyst for my response. If he attacked the UPC elsewhere in his blog, I wouldn't know. I'm not a regular follower of his blog. He's not my type.

You obviously aren't interested in the truth, or you wouldn't keep making up motives to insert behind my posts.

I will continue to post on the things that interest me, and ignore the things that bore me, with or without your approval. The issues that are "important" to me may not be the same ones that you find titillating. Nevertheless, I don't need your permission to be concerned about one thing and entirely unconcerned with another. Further, I can assure you that nothing in my post was intended to impress you in particular. I posted because I had an opinion, and because I had the time to post it.

[FlamingZword]

Oh, Charnock. You are trying too hard. :rolleyes2

Two things you should know:

1. I don't know if Martyn Ballestero is licensed with the UPC or not--or whether or not he used to be.
2. I didn't see where he attacked the UPC in the facial hair blog post and therefore that could not have possibly been the catalyst for my response. If he attacked the UPC elsewhere in his blog, I wouldn't know. I'm not a regular follower of his blog. He's not my type.

You obviously aren't interested in the truth, or you wouldn't keep making up motives to insert behind my posts.

I will continue to post on the things that interest me, and ignore the things that bore me, with or without your approval. The issues that are "important" to me may not be the same ones that you find titillating. Nevertheless, I don't need your permission to be concerned about one thing and entirely unconcerned with another. Further, I can assure you that nothing in my post was intended to impress you in particular. I posted because I had an opinion, and because I had the time to post it.

MsB, I just loved your response, I will probably copy it for some future use.
Sorry for stealing your words, but I am a lazy preacher, and even if I wasn't I do not think I could not created such a well crafted response like yours.

[MissBrattified]

MsB, I just loved your response, I will probably copy it for some future use. Sorry for stealing your words, but I am a lazy preacher, and even if I wasn't I do not think I could not created such a well crafted response like yours.

Thanks, FZw. :) Feel free to copy and paste whatever you like. I wasn't even sure if anyone would make it through the entire thing, since it was so long (and that was after I removed a couple of paragraphs and split the post in half. LOL).

[Dante]

Ballestero doesn't like black people or hispanics.

[Rudy]

Ballestero doesn't like black people or hispanics.


Oh my!!! LOL.

[Pressing-On]

"Here's the deal: I don't particularly LIKE Crocs. You know--those uber-practical but super ugly waterproof rubber shoes that some people adore? Yeah."

Okay, well, I certainly can't argue with this. :heeheehee

[houston]

BAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA!! LOL LOL LOL

I was waiting for Ed to attack the bratt.

[MissBrattified]

BAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA!! LOL LOL LOL

I was waiting for Ed to attack the bratt.

I'm so glad you weren't disappointed. :woot

[houston]

Lol

[Charnock]

Oh, Charnock. You are trying too hard. :rolleyes2

Two things you should know:

1. I don't know if Martyn Ballestero is licensed with the UPC or not--or whether or not he used to be.
2. I didn't see where he attacked the UPC in the facial hair blog post and therefore that could not have possibly been the catalyst for my response. If he attacked the UPC elsewhere in his blog, I wouldn't know. I'm not a regular follower of his blog. He's not my type.

You obviously aren't interested in the truth, or you wouldn't keep making up motives to insert behind my posts.

I will continue to post on the things that interest me, and ignore the things that bore me, with or without your approval. The issues that are "important" to me may not be the same ones that you find titillating. Nevertheless, I don't need your permission to be concerned about one thing and entirely unconcerned with another. Further, I can assure you that nothing in my post was intended to impress you in particular. I posted because I had an opinion, and because I had the time to post it.

You seem well spoken, but have trouble telling the truth.

From the article in question: "Recently, a Pentecostal organization even passed a position paper making it acceptable in their ranks for men to wear facial hair."

Um, is there another Oneness org who have recently done so? I don't think so.

And, for the record, nothing you post impresses me. I prefer balanced posts.

[Charnock]

Ballestero doesn't like black people or hispanics.

More important, he doesn't like the UPC. That's why this thread was created. :heeheehee

[Charnock]

I anxiously await MissB's next blog dissection.

What issue will unleash the beast?

An article condoning magic hair?
A blog against TV?
A video rant against jewelry?

Careful, go down that road and you become like everyone else who speaks truth. And, as we already know, you're bothered that we're bothered by the lunacy of it all.:dogpat

[MissBrattified]

You seem well spoken, but have trouble telling the truth.

From the article in question: "Recently, a Pentecostal organization even passed a position paper making it acceptable in their ranks for men to wear facial hair."

Um, is there another Oneness org who have recently done so? I don't think so.

My dear man, I didn't realize that the UPCI had only just recently published a "position paper" making it acceptable for men to wear facial hair. Ergo, I didn't make the connection. The only thing I recall was something about it being allowed on the General Conference platform--and that was from several years ago. I just checked--that info was posted back in 2009. Five years ago, if you're counting. That's not "recent" in my estimation. It was also stated in that thread that the UPCI had never enforced an organization-wide rule on facial hair. So, um...what are you talking about?

...And, for the record, nothing you post impresses me. I prefer balanced posts

That's great, because you never crossed my mind when I posted this thread. :nobodycares I wrote and posted my reaction mostly for my own enjoyment.

More important, he doesn't like the UPC. That's why this thread was created. :heeheehee

You seem to enjoy calling people liars, but that doesn't mean I am one. :bigbaby

[Theophil]

CA,Martyn, and Brian Ballestero are all licensed with the UPCI.

[ILG]

I anxiously await MissB's next blog dissection.

What issue will unleash the beast?

An article condoning magic hair?
A blog against TV?
A video rant against jewelry?

Careful, go down that road and you become like everyone else who speaks truth. And, as we already know, you're bothered that we're bothered by the lunacy of it all.:dogpat

Charnock,

I'm not UPC. Haven't been for a long time. I post things on here sometimes that are pretty controversial and get some UPC'ers pretty upset and some of them hurl ridiculous accusations my way in order to try and obscure issues that they don't want themselves or anyone else to look at.

Just for the record, Miss B is not one of those. I think she is one of the most respectable women on this forum. Her posts are always well thought out and I consider her to be a very decent and nice and respectable person. I like her. That doesn't mean we agree on everything. But we don't have to agree to get along. I think her motives are decent as well. Whenever she writes, I tune in because she has a lot of good to say. I honestly don't know why you are saying the things to her you are. And I don't want to know. But I am truly shocked you are saying them. You ought to save your angst for some on here who really deserve it and use it on them. I could name a few. ;)

[Reader]

It seems I recall something a certain someone shouted in another discussion (on the Hoffman video).....Except you do have an agenda, and it colors everything you post.

You jump in at every chance to marginalize those who post threads like these.


Did the pot call the kettle black?????????? There was no need to jump on Brat like you did. It would appear the only reason was an attempt to marginalize.....

[votivesoul]

Didn't read all of the opening posts, nor yet the six pages of responses, but I did catch the part about the Roman Empire espousing a cultural view in which men were clean shaven. To that I reply.

It was a horde of burly, bearded Goths who destroyed the empire, thus ending 1,000 years of Roman rule.

In the same way, maybe it will be a horde of burly, bearded Gospel men who bring down the legalist agenda in Oneness circles?

[Praxeas]

True they are men pleasers.
Well, yes or they are trying to keep the spirit of unity in their organizations

[Praxeas]

Thanks, FZw. :) Feel free to copy and paste whatever you like. I wasn't even sure if anyone would make it through the entire thing, since it was so long (and that was after I removed a couple of paragraphs and split the post in half. LOL).
These sayings and more can be had in groups of 10 for $5 each.

[MissBrattified]

These sayings and more can be had in groups of 10 for $5 each.

:happydance

[Pliny]

Good grief...

[Praxeas]

Interesting blog on colored shirts where MB's father says wearing white shirts and black suits came from Rome...

http://martynballestero.com/2010/11/04/%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s-a-sin-for-preachers-to-wear-colored-shirts%E2%80%9D-he-said/

[MissBrattified]

Interesting blog on colored shirts where MB's father says wearing white shirts and black suits came from Rome...

http://martynballestero.com/2010/11/04/%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s-a-sin-for-preachers-to-wear-colored-shirts%E2%80%9D-he-said/

That is interesting. :hmmm

I noticed someone referencing colored shirts on the platform in the comments under MB's facial hair post. That's an issue I don't recall hearing raised before.

"Oh wow!

I love the message and love the way you ended it… POW!

I feel the same with colored shirts on the platform.

Exelent !!!!!!"

[shag]

I anxiously await MissB's next blog dissection.

What issue will unleash the beast?

An article condoning magic hair?
A blog against TV?
A video rant against jewelry?

Careful, go down that road and you become like everyone else who speaks truth. And, as we already know, you're bothered that we're bothered by the lunacy of it all.:dogpat



And I anxiously await the day u decide to quit posting on here till you pray thru, bury the bitterness, get full of the Spirit of Christ, and start building up your brothers and sisters in Christ instead of spending the majority of your posting doing just the opposite.

[tstew]

Ahhh...so refreshing. Consistency, thy name is AFF. :)

[Charnock]

Oh the humanity!

[ILG]

Well, yes or they are trying to keep the spirit of unity in their organizations

That's not unity. That's uniformity.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

That's not unity. That's uniformity.

Exactly. Its lame the reasons people will spit out in support of this garbage. My blessed mother said "Well they have uniforms in the military, why not in the church?" sigh....

[MissBrattified]

That's not unity. That's uniformity.

Agreed, and it's unreasonable uniformity. Maybe something similar in scope would be making all Pentecostal women wear the same hairdo. Except it's still worse, since removing facial hair every day requires some physical alteration.

I'm still shocked that anyone still holds the stance that facial hair on men is wrong. I really thought that idea was fading away. But then, colored shirts, too... :rolleyes2 :girlytantrum

I do strongly object to the imposition of any sweeping church rule regarding male facial hair, and I mildly object to it being a stipulation for church membership. Conversely, I also object to removing the right of pastors to make somewhat arbitrary rules of conduct and appearance for the local congregation based on their personal preferences, as annoying as some of those rules might be.

What I find truly repugnant is the implication that men who follow an extra-biblical rule are in any way superior Christians to those who do not, and the implication or outright statement that facial hair on men is a sin with zero biblical support behind it. As for the latter, I can forgive some issues a bit, because I realize they surround scripture that can be interpreted one way or another, and even badly. I don't like it when scriptures are interpreted inaccurately (in my view), but I can forgive it if it's obvious the motive is trying one's best to follow scripture. However, when it's apparent that a person is completely outside of the Word, and using their influence to push their own personal likes and dislikes, it becomes far less forgivable.

The Apostles showed the hearts of compassionate leaders when they said in Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" They didn't want to burden the saints with anything more than was necessary for them to live victoriously. Conversely, some ministers take the opposite tact, and it serves to shout their attitude to the world. They seem to take joy in weighing people down with extraneous rules and testing their commitment and consecration--which they were never called by God to do. The church leadership was never put in place by God to burden the saints. Paul said in II Corinthians 12:19, "Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ:but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying."

This scripture reminds me of a parenting principle our pastor has repeated through the years. He has always said parents shouldn't punish children for embarrassing them, or out of anger, and that parents should make sure all discipline is truly for the child's benefit--not the parents' benefit. That guiding principle is a fantastic one for parenting, because if you apply it diligently, you will carefully discipline your child[ren] in a way that's meant to build their character and benefit them as a person. In the same way, Paul shares a guiding principle for leaders: "...we do all things...for your edifying." A godly church leader centers his service around building up and equipping the saints; a self-serving leader imposes arbitrary rules to please himself.

Again, motive matters here. If a pastor weighs an issue, searches scripture, prays, and comes to the conclusion that ______ is bad for his congregation and then shares it with them from that POV and with that attitude, that is forgivable even if he's off base. Motive and attitude matters. But the flippant attitude of "I don't like it, so you shouldn't do it" with no compassion felt for the saints who may feel burdened by an extraneous demand isn't as easy to pardon.

[FlamingZword]

This goes back to the pharisees spirit.
who created to so many extra rules "to Protect" the Sabbath from being desecrated that the Sabbath went from being a benefit to being a burden.

Now days in Israel most of the Jews no longer bother to keep the Sabbath, because of all the extra rules that have been added to the sabbath, it is so burdensome to keep the sabbath that most people decide not to do it, they consider it impossible to keep the Sabbath, because those guys with "good intentions" decided they needed extra rules to "Help" the people be more holy. Isn't that the cry of the modern pharisees, they just want to help the people be more holy.

[Brad Murphy]

Charnock... I have to chime in and defend MissB here... I was a regular poster here for years and have to say that she has been one of the most balanced and thoughtful posters across this forum and its various predecessors. I think you are off-base here and seem to have some very personal bone to pick with MissB.

I've posted things so anti-UPC that it would make your skin crawl and she was never rude to me... if anything, she helped me to understand that I was the one who had changed, and that helped me to stop getting so riled up about issues in an organization I haven't been a part of for years. Other than my mom's funeral a couple of months ago, I haven't been in a UPC church for many years. I still have my same views, but don't see the point in offending people who are still in a culture/belief-system that I am no longer a part of. Obviously, you have the right to express yourself and your opinion, but speaking as someone who is very much NOT a UPC-apologist, your bias is coming in very clearly and if you don't see it, you might need to take a step back and examine why you feel so strongly about her. Respectfully... and I will not respond to further discussion on this, just wanted to say my two cents.

[Praxeas]

That's not unity. That's uniformity.
Uniformity is unity. People doing the same, not rocking the boat or being schizmatic.

BTW since we were discussing allowing facial hair but not on the platform, it's not really uniformity.

As I said it's about not causing division or trouble from others who unfortunately still follow this old tradition

[Praxeas]

Exactly. Its lame the reasons people will spit out in support of this garbage. My blessed mother said "Well they have uniforms in the military, why not in the church?" sigh....
Read what I said again. I never supported it. I explained WHY some churches allow facial hair but not on the platform.

Nobody was arguing we should all have a uniform

[Praxeas]

You guys missed the point and the conversation. Someone said something about churches that allow facial hair but not on the platform

I responded that maybe they do that to not get flack from other Pastors/churches

he responded, correct they are men pleasers

I responded yes or they are simply trying to keep unity in an organization.

You have two options in any union, compromise or leave. Same goes for marriages

[Reader]

Uniformity is unity.

Consider that some people conform, but not because they believe something is right (or wrong) to do. That uniformity is not unity, IMO.

[ILG]

Exactly. Its lame the reasons people will spit out in support of this garbage. My blessed mother said "Well they have uniforms in the military, why not in the church?" sigh....

Because they don't tell you you are going to hell for not wearing it in the military. ;)

[ILG]

What I find truly repugnant is the implication that men who follow an extra-biblical rule are in any way superior Christians to those who do not, and the implication or outright statement that facial hair on men is a sin with zero biblical support behind it. As for the latter, I can forgive some issues a bit, because I realize they surround scripture that can be interpreted one way or another, and even badly. I don't like it when scriptures are interpreted inaccurately (in my view), but I can forgive it if it's obvious the motive is trying one's best to follow scripture. However, when it's apparent that a person is completely outside of the Word, and using their influence to push their own personal likes and dislikes, it becomes far less forgivable.


I think once people bite into the idea that extra-biblical rules are mandatory and salvational, they want to make sure they are in the kingdom out of fear of not making it, and they feel it's better to be 'safe' than sorry, not realizing that legalism also has it's own dangers. So, not seeing how dangerous their rule system is in and of itself, they make rules to 'err on the side of safety'.

[ILG]

Charnock... I have to chime in and defend MissB here... I was a regular poster here for years and have to say that she has been one of the most balanced and thoughtful posters across this forum and its various predecessors. I think you are off-base here and seem to have some very personal bone to pick with MissB.

I've posted things so anti-UPC that it would make your skin crawl and she was never rude to me... if anything, she helped me to understand that I was the one who had changed, and that helped me to stop getting so riled up about issues in an organization I haven't been a part of for years. Other than my mom's funeral a couple of months ago, I haven't been in a UPC church for many years. I still have my same views, but don't see the point in offending people who are still in a culture/belief-system that I am no longer a part of. Obviously, you have the right to express yourself and your opinion, but speaking as someone who is very much NOT a UPC-apologist, your bias is coming in very clearly and if you don't see it, you might need to take a step back and examine why you feel so strongly about her. Respectfully... and I will not respond to further discussion on this, just wanted to say my two cents.

Sorry you lost your Mom, Brad. :(

[ILG]

Uniformity is unity. People doing the same, not rocking the boat or being schizmatic.

BTW since we were discussing allowing facial hair but not on the platform, it's not really uniformity.

As I said it's about not causing division or trouble from others who unfortunately still follow this old tradition

No, unity is not uniformity. Go and learn what this meaneth. :)

[Brad Murphy]

Sorry you lost your Mom, Brad. :(

Thanks :( It was tougher than I expected, even though she had been sick for several years.

[ILG]

Thanks :( It was tougher than I expected, even though she had been sick for several years.

I have not lost a parent but I hear you can never really be prepared.....

[MissBrattified]

I think once people bite into the idea that extra-biblical rules are mandatory and salvational, they want to make sure they are in the kingdom out of fear of not making it, and they feel it's better to be 'safe' than sorry, not realizing that legalism also has it's own dangers. So, not seeing how dangerous their rule system is in and of itself, they make rules to 'err on the side of safety'.

I agree, and I've made those sorts of fearful choices myself.

[MissBrattified]

Thanks :( It was tougher than I expected, even though she had been sick for several years.

I'm sorry, Brad. :( My Dad was sick for years, too...it doesn't make the loss any easier to know that it's coming.

[Praxeas]

Consider that some people conform, but not because they believe something is right (or wrong) to do. That uniformity is not unity, IMO.
Sure it is! They CONFORM to keep UNITY. Unity doesn't mean "we all believe exactly alike", though it can. Unity is a broad term.

People agree to do or practice things not necessarily because they believe it's right but because the rest of the union (the group) believes it or the group has declared it's a necessity to be a part of the group

For example, if you worked at a store that had a dress code you might not agree with it, but if you wanted to work there you have to keep it..

So there is Unity in purpose.

Oh yes you can be sure uniformity and conformity can be a UNION

[Praxeas]

No, unity is not uniformity. Go and learn what this meaneth. :)
You reversed what I said, Go and learneth how to readeth.

I said Uniformity is Unity. I did not say Unity is Uniformity.

Yes Uniformity is Unity

In fact Uniformity is a SYNONYM for Unity

http://thesaurus.com/browse/unity?__utma=1.1927583902.1401231224.1401831515.14 01862268.4&__utmb=1.4.9.1401862270144&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1401862268.4.4.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28or ganic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=%28not%20provided%2 9&__utmv=-&__utmk=30521023

But go thou and learneth what that meaneth beforeth you talketh to me-eth :throwrock

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Read what I said again. I never supported it. I explained WHY some churches allow facial hair but not on the platform.

Nobody was arguing we should all have a uniform

I know bro. I just threw that out there.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Do people agree with that whole Godly custom statement he made? Again, he tries to imply that not having facial hair is Godly.

[FlamingZword]

Do people agree with that whole Godly custom statement he made? Again, he tries to imply that not having facial hair is Godly.

Well
Aaron had a beard
David Had a beard
Jermiah had a beard
Others probably had a beard, but the scriptures do not mention it.
Jesus HAD A BEARD, isn't he GODLY, can anyone be more GODLY than Jesus?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Well
Aaron had a beard
David Had a beard
Jermiah had a beard
Others probably had a beard, but the scriptures do not mention it.
Jesus HAD A BEARD, isn't he GODLY, can anyone be more GODLY than Jesus?

But hippies had beards! Hells Angels have beards! Its stupid. They want to impress all the biblical standards of dress on people, except this. Its makes zero sense!

[FlamingZword]

But hippies had beards! Hells Angels have beards! Its stupid. They want to impress all the biblical standards of dress on people, except this. Its makes zero sense!

The Amish have beards.
The Jewish rabbis have beards

[Fionn mac Cumh]

The Amish have beards.
The Jewish rabbis have beards

Yup. If a beard is good enough for GODs chosen people why not for his bride? The stance is pathetic at best.

[Aquila]

Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. This is a perfect example of exta-biblical legalism.

[Praxeas]

Do people agree with that whole Godly custom statement he made? Again, he tries to imply that not having facial hair is Godly.
I don't agree with anything he said.

[Praxeas]

The Amish have beards.
The Jewish rabbis have beardsAccording to Bro Epley Lions have beards....

[The Lemon]

But hippies had beards! Hells Angels have beards! Its stupid. They want to impress all the biblical standards of dress on people, except this. Its makes zero sense!

Trying to "make sense" out of a great deal of "standards" usually does not work. Motive, intention, and conversation show the character of a person far more then clean shaven, long pants, hair off the ears etc., etc.

Of course running around semi-clad or nude would also tell a lot too....just sayin'.

Not in every instance, but in at least some, there is the world the religious try to create and justify to sustain, and then there is the real world where most people, including Christians live every day - the two are usually quite different...

[FlamingZword]

According to Bro Epley Lions have beards....

Jesus the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. :heeheehee

[Reader]

Sure it is! They CONFORM to keep UNITY. Unity doesn't mean "we all believe exactly alike", though it can. Unity is a broad term.

While I follow you to a point, I see many variables. In addition, everyone is not conforming to keep unity.

Some conform because they are a minor and have no choice, but outside of the parent's eyes they wouldn't be seen as conforming. So is that unity?

Some conform because they have a desire to be used in some capacity. Their conformity has nothing to do with unity and some toss the standards of conformity when not seen by the others. How is that unity?

Consider the Pharisees, who had a focus on outward appearance and their dress/appearance was uniform and yet they were not in unity.

[Dante]

I have made several attempts to reach Martyn personally, but to no avail. I didn't want to be among the throng of people who are talking about the man and his doctrine without personally telling him what I thought of his article. Unfortunately, his telephone numbers go to voicemail/answering machine. He has yet to reply to my email. He has yet to reply to my Facebook message. He has yet to reply to my Twitter messages.

The man needs to be held accountable, and I'm giving him the opportunity to be accountable for his false doctrine.

[Sister Alvear]

Call 318 339 8628 that is my pastor's number...Rev. Bryan Taylor he was just there preaching....maybe he could give you a number to reach him....

[CC1]

Charnock... I have to chime in and defend MissB here... I was a regular poster here for years and have to say that she has been one of the most balanced and thoughtful posters across this forum and its various predecessors. I think you are off-base here and seem to have some very personal bone to pick with MissB.

I've posted things so anti-UPC that it would make your skin crawl and she was never rude to me... if anything, she helped me to understand that I was the one who had changed, and that helped me to stop getting so riled up about issues in an organization I haven't been a part of for years. Other than my mom's funeral a couple of months ago, I haven't been in a UPC church for many years. I still have my same views, but don't see the point in offending people who are still in a culture/belief-system that I am no longer a part of. Obviously, you have the right to express yourself and your opinion, but speaking as someone who is very much NOT a UPC-apologist, your bias is coming in very clearly and if you don't see it, you might need to take a step back and examine why you feel so strongly about her. Respectfully... and I will not respond to further discussion on this, just wanted to say my two cents.

Thank you for this post. Very insightful in many ways and I hope one some of our more combative posters who constantly attack and tear down traditional Pentecostals will read and take to heart. You can disagree without being disagreeable as the old saying goes but it seems some exUPCers take joy in being offensive and rude to those who still are.

[Praxeas]

While I follow you to a point, I see many variables. In addition, everyone is not conforming to keep unity.


I never said everyone was. But some do. In fact some always have. I bet Robert Sabin did.

[ILG]

In all my years in a certain organization, I experienced uniformity, but not unity. I would rather have unity any day of the week.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

I have made several attempts to reach Martyn personally, but to no avail. I didn't want to be among the throng of people who are talking about the man and his doctrine without personally telling him what I thought of his article. Unfortunately, his telephone numbers go to voicemail/answering machine. He has yet to reply to my email. He has yet to reply to my Facebook message. He has yet to reply to my Twitter messages.

The man needs to be held accountable, and I'm giving him the opportunity to be accountable for his false doctrine.

The fact that we are calling this a doctrine is another shame.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

In all my years in a certain organization, I experienced uniformity, but not unity. I would rather have unity any day of the week.

Well said and I agree.

[Praxeas]

In all my years in a certain organization, I experienced uniformity, but not unity. I would rather have unity any day of the week.
Hmmm. I experience Unity all the time. We come together for a church service at the same time and same place..

That's Unity.

We pitch in together to raise money.

That's Unity

We pray for each other.

That's Unity

We send out text msgs and facebook posts whenever a brother or sister has a problem we need to pray for or help them with.

That's Unity.

We fast together.

That's Unity.

And like I said, Uniformity is a synonym of Unity. Sayng "I experienced Uniformity but not Unity" is a contradiction. Or you just need to go learneth whateth that meaneth

[Praxeas]

The fact that we are calling this a doctrine is another shame.
lol...I thought that but didn't post it

However it is a "doctrine". It's HIS doctrine/Teaching but clearly not a biblical doctrine

[FlamingZword]

lol...I thought that but didn't post it

However it is a "doctrine". It's HIS doctrine/Teaching but clearly not a biblical doctrine

Teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men.

This was the eternal battle between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The Pharisees had with their "good intentions" added unto the Law, when God had said. "You shall not add unto my word"

What part of "You shall not add unto my word" is hard to understand?

These preachers do not seem to understand that they have the same problem that these Pharisees had, they add unto the word of God.

Their adding unto the word of God is a much worse sin than a woman wearing pants.

These Holiness preachers are actually committing a grievious sin, because by their commandments they eventually make the word of God of none effect.

[Rudy]

Teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men.

This was the eternal battle between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The Pharisees had with their "good intentions" added unto the Law, when God had said. "You shall not add unto my word"

What part of "You shall not add unto my word" is hard to understand?

These preachers do not seem to understand that they have the same problem that these Pharisees had, they add unto the word of God.

Their adding unto the word of God is a much worse sin than a woman wearing pants.

These Holiness preachers are actually committing a grievious sin, because by their commandments they eventually make the word of God of none effect.


:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

I don't recall ever hearing the term "facial hair" until the last few years around Apostolics. The Bible speaks of a "beard". Maybe they changed the term so they could preach against it under the guise of it being "long hair"?

[Michael The Disciple]

Teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men.

This was the eternal battle between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The Pharisees had with their "good intentions" added unto the Law, when God had said. "You shall not add unto my word"

What part of "You shall not add unto my word" is hard to understand?

These preachers do not seem to understand that they have the same problem that these Pharisees had, they add unto the word of God.

Their adding unto the word of God is a much worse sin than a woman wearing pants.

These Holiness preachers are actually committing a grievious sin, because by their commandments they eventually make the word of God of none effect.

Let us not call them "holiness preachers". If anything a beard is "holy" to the Lord. They are actually false teachers. That would be a better term.

[bkstokes]

Wow, wow, wow - what a crazy system.

[Praxeas]

We're goin off the rails on a crazy train...

[Dante]

There's a difference between unity and conformity. Most who are/were a part of the UPC/ALJC or (insert organization here) conformed to the community requirements to be a part of that social structure. It was an illusion of unity.

[ILG]

There's a difference between unity and conformity. Most who are/were a part of the UPC/ALJC or (insert organization here) conformed to the community requirements to be a part of that social structure. It was an illusion of unity.

:thumbsup

[Fionn mac Cumh]

We're goin off the rails on a crazy train...

To many religions and only one GOD. I dont need another savior

[Fionn mac Cumh]

There's a difference between unity and conformity. Most who are/were a part of the UPC/ALJC or (insert organization here) conformed to the community requirements to be a part of that social structure. It was an illusion of unity.

Its conformity. Half the stuff I did, I did because I wanted to fit in. I could care less about beards and other stupid "Holiness" standards.

[Michael The Disciple]

Just a quick check. Has anyone ever heard a beard called "facial hair" besides in an Apostolic context?

[Praxeas]

There's a difference between unity and conformity. Most who are/were a part of the UPC/ALJC or (insert organization here) conformed to the community requirements to be a part of that social structure. It was an illusion of unity.
Yes but Uniformity is a synonym for Unity

You can CONFORM for the sake of Unity.

People do it all the time in businesses and relationships

[Praxeas]

Just a quick check. Has anyone ever heard a beard called "facial hair" besides in an Apostolic context?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair

YES

[aegsm76]

Just a quick check. Has anyone ever heard a beard called "facial hair" besides in an Apostolic context?

Yes. In the military and in job situations.

[Abiding Now]

Ballestero doesn't like black people or hispanics.

Duh, Look at the picture real close.

http://marciajune.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/dsc_0099.jpg

[Praxeas]

Duh, Look at the picture real close.

http://marciajune.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/dsc_0099.jpg
Yeah..kinda hard to miss that!

[Sabby]

You don't know Marty? Why he's the coolest cat ever!
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/S1i5coU-0_Q/maxresdefault.jpg

LOL

[Sabby]

That's not unity. That's uniformity.

I agree.

[Praxeas]

Can someone define UNIty and UNIformity for me? Because my dictionary says they are synonyms

[Reader]

Prax, I think many of us see unity (as it pertains to this discussion) as meaning agreement, or united in mind and beliefs, and that is why we have a difficult time agreeing with you that uniformity is unity. At least I think! LOL

[Steve Epley]

I agree with Elder Ballestero I know y'all are shocked.

[Praxeas]

Prax, I think many of us see unity (as it pertains to this discussion) as meaning agreement, or united in mind and beliefs, and that is why we have a difficult time agreeing with you that uniformity is unity. At least I think! LOL

Even when you don't agree, uniformITY is a form of Unity. In the Military the all wear Uniforms that conform to a uniform norm (yes I did that intentionally lol). They are unified. They are in unity. Uniformity is one aspect of Unity. They may not all want to wear the same looking uniforms but they do it anyways for the sake of unity

[barry72]

My opinion is that we can't hold ourselves to worldly standards as a means to be seperate. Just because the military is doing it, or a business, doesn't mean it's right for God's church. The problem is we have a adapted a Pharisee spirit in the Apostolic churches. Many churches have platform guidelines that only mention appearances on the outside and tithing. How about if a person is prideful or disrupts unity, or has anger problems, we overlook these Internal issues as long as they are unified in appearance. That's why the church can't adopt policies from the world and enforce them on members. That's not the way God wants his church to be ran.

[Michael The Disciple]

I agree with Elder Ballestero I know y'all are shocked.

On what basis is "facial hair" sin?

[Michael The Disciple]

Barry

Many churches have platform guidelines that only mention appearances on the outside and tithing. How about if a person is prideful or disrupts unity, or has anger problems, we overlook these Internal issues as long as they are unified in appearance.

Good observation!

[AR Pastor]

I agree with brother Ballestero In an age where so many are changing what they believe and what we in the Oneness Pentecostal church believe I am thankful for a man of God who is not afraid of popular opinion. But will stand for our beliefs and not change.

[n david]

I agree with brother Ballestero In an age where so many are changing what they believe and what we in the Oneness Pentecostal church believe I am thankful for a man of God who is not afraid of popular opinion. But will stand for our beliefs and not change.
Where in the Bible does it say for men not to grow facial hair?

[kclee4jc]

While it is true that their is little to no biblical support for a "doctrine" against facial hair, I must agree that there seems to be an attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority that follows facial hair into Pentecostal churches that have previously taught against it.

I suppose it comes down to the motivating factor and the background an individual has. If he is rebelling against teaching he has received and embracing some perceived "new liberty", then there is danger.

I would not call facial hair a sin or tell someone they are lost because of it, but I will agree with the elder. I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal men!

[FlamingZword]

While it is true that their is little to no biblical support for a "doctrine" against facial hair, I must agree that there seems to be an attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority that follows facial hair into Pentecostal churches that have previously taught against it.

I suppose it comes down to the motivating factor and the background an individual has. If he is rebelling against teaching he has received and embracing some perceived "new liberty", then there is danger.

I would not call facial hair a sin or tell someone they are lost because of it, but I will agree with the elder. I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal men!

I like the facial hair on Jesus Christ.

[Kevin Archer]

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr255/KevArcher/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg (http://s489.photobucket.com/user/KevArcher/media/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg.html)

I'm thankful for this precious man of God. Bro Ballestero was our guest speaker this year as we celebrated our Tenth Pastoral Anniversary. He has been a wonderful friend to both my family and the church that I'm privileged to Pastor. I'm thankful for men with personal convictions.

[FlamingZword]

I'm thankful for this precious man of God. Bro Ballestero was our guest speaker this year as we celebrated our Tenth Pastoral Anniversary. He has been a wonderful friend to both my family and the church that I'm privileged to Pastor. I'm thankful for men with personal convictions.

How about men with personal convictions that do not mirror yours?

[Steve Epley]

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr255/KevArcher/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg (http://s489.photobucket.com/user/KevArcher/media/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg.html)

I'm thankful for this precious man of God. Bro Ballestero was our guest speaker this year as we celebrated our Tenth Pastoral Anniversary. He has been a wonderful friend to both my family and the church that I'm privileged to Pastor. I'm thankful for men with personal convictions.

Two great men of God that stil preach the only saving message. Where men are saved and shaved!:thumbsup:yourock:highfive:happydance

[kclee4jc]

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr255/KevArcher/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg (http://s489.photobucket.com/user/KevArcher/media/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg.html)

I'm thankful for this precious man of God. Bro Ballestero was our guest speaker this year as we celebrated our Tenth Pastoral Anniversary. He has been a wonderful friend to both my family and the church that I'm privileged to Pastor. I'm thankful for men with personal convictions.

Good picture! Love Bro. Ballestero!

[Steve Epley]

How about men with personal convictions that do not mirror yours?

We preach against them.:happydance:highfive:heeheehee:heeheehee

[FlamingZword]

We preach against them.:happydance:highfive:heeheehee:heeheehee

Well I prefer to preach the Bible, rather than man-made traditions.
If it is not in the Bible I do not preach it.

[Kevin Archer]

How about men with personal convictions that do not mirror yours?

You can feel free to ask anyone that knows me. I try my best to be a christian gentleman to everyone that I meet. There is no excuses in scripture for character assassination.

Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

I teach this: "You don't have to be my twin to be my brother." I sincerely believe it too. Not all of my friends believe exactly like me.

[kclee4jc]

Those criticizing the Elder's blog entry on facial hair, should also read his blog entry entitled "Show Me in the Bible". Very good follow up to a controversial topic.

[MawMaw]

I love reading Elder Ballestero's blog!!

[n david]

You can feel free to ask anyone that knows me. I try my best to be a christian gentleman to everyone that I meet. There is no excuses in scripture for character assassination.

Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

I teach this: "You don't have to be my twin to be my brother." I sincerely believe it too. Not all of my friends believe exactly like me.
:thumbsup

[ILG]

I like the facial hair on Jesus Christ.

Heretic.

[Michael The Disciple]

While it is true that their is little to no biblical support for a "doctrine" against facial hair, I must agree that there seems to be an attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority that follows facial hair into Pentecostal churches that have previously taught against it.

I suppose it comes down to the motivating factor and the background an individual has. If he is rebelling against teaching he has received and embracing some perceived "new liberty", then there is danger.

I would not call facial hair a sin or tell someone they are lost because of it, but I will agree with the elder. I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal men!

What about the "arrogance" of those who disregard the word of God and condemn others on the basis of their "personal conviction"? Why would there have ever been a doctrine against beards?

Think about this. I think I will say its a SIN for anyone to buy a new car! Why? Are they not arrogantly flaunting their wealth before others who drive an older car?

So yes! Its now established! If anyone is having a prideful arrogance in having the hardness of heart to buy a new car he is going to Hell! Or maybe we COULD soften it a bit.

If anyone greedily (we know there must be something in their heart) goes and defiles himself by buying a new expensive car we will graciously on our part permit them to come to the Church meetings AS LONG AS they don't step up on the platform!

So now on the basis of OUR THOUGHTS AND OUR CONVICTIONS let it be known that we will refuse to fellowship anyone who has the rebellious attitude of buying a new car.

But wait! Why stop there? How about a new home? New clothes? Could we not find more Biblical precedent for preaching against THESE than against a man LIKE JESUS CHRIST wearing a beard?

Come on guys this is so pathetic it is laughable if it were not that probably many good spirit filled men and women will look into the pitiful lack of Bible knowledge on something that's a NON ISSUE among Oneness Pentecostals and think surely this must be a cult.

And as far as Im concerned any Church teaching such nonsense IS!

Is Oneness true? A thousand times yes! Is Acts 2:38 true? Certainly!

IS BIBLE HOLINESS TRUE! YES!

Let us be true disciples and live and die on the teachings of Yeshua Messiah!

[AR Pastor]

While it is true that their is little to no biblical support for a "doctrine" against facial hair, I must agree that there seems to be an attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority that follows facial hair into Pentecostal churches that have previously taught against it.

I suppose it comes down to the motivating factor and the background an individual has. If he is rebelling against teaching he has received and embracing some perceived "new liberty", then there is danger.

I would not call facial hair a sin or tell someone they are lost because of it, but I will agree with the elder. I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal men!
I will say amen to that post

[AR Pastor]

I have been blessed every time I have been privileged to hear bro Ballestero. Also bless by his blog.

[n david]

Some are quick to condemn beards...but say nothing about their gluttony and addiction to buffets. Gluttony is a sin in the Bible....wearing facial hair is not.

Who's really in sin?

[Steve Epley]

Some are quick to condemn beards...but say nothing about their gluttony and addiction to buffets. Gluttony is a sin in the Bible....wearing facial hair is not.

Who's really in sin?

I would reply but I have to refill my plate.:thumbsup:happydance:highfive

[jediwill83]

I wear a beard...if others dont like it...fine.I know what the scripture says and doesnt say and I'm not convicted over it and I dont argue over it.Others are welcome to have their own feelings about it and I will have mine but I'm not going to get defensive or have a bad attitude about it.I just do my best to follow peace with all men and love everybody.

[n david]

I would reply but I have to refill my plate.:thumbsup:happydance:highfive
:lol

[Michael The Disciple]

I wear a beard...if others dont like it...fine.I know what the scripture says and doesnt say and I'm not convicted over it and I dont argue over it.Others are welcome to have their own feelings about it and I will have mine but I'm not going to get defensive or have a bad attitude about it.I just do my best to follow peace with all men and love everybody.

Yes but consider this. If we don't cry out against the hypocrisy of it when will it ever end? I hate to think the following generations of Pentecostal Christians are going to have to fight this same old tired, dead, frail doctrine.

[Praxeas]

My opinion is that we can't hold ourselves to worldly standards as a means to be seperate. Just because the military is doing it, or a business, doesn't mean it's right for God's church. .
Nobody said "because the Military does it, so should we"..

In fact I never argued we SHOULD do it (have a standard).

[Praxeas]

I agree with brother Ballestero In an age where so many are changing what they believe and what we in the Oneness Pentecostal church believe I am thankful for a man of God who is not afraid of popular opinion. But will stand for our beliefs and not change.
My first Pastor came in to the UPC back in the 50s.

He told me he did not believ facial hair was a heaven or hell issue. Many simply followed it as an unwritten church standard but never believed it.

How come the Oneness brethren did not have your attitude back when they changed from Trinity to Oneness and Trinity baptism to Oneness baptism and from no tongues to tongues?

There is nothing wrong with changing as long as it's in the right direction. The No Facial hair rule is an unbiblical man made rule being forced on others.

Therefore it's not a matter of getting rid of beliefs but lining up MORE with the word of God and not having man made rules forced on everyone just because some Pastor has a personal preference

Also, at one time the no facial hair rule was not a universal belief for Oneness groups nor Pentecostals

[Praxeas]

While it is true that their is little to no biblical support for a "doctrine" against facial hair, I must agree that there seems to be an attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority that follows facial hair into Pentecostal churches that have previously taught against it.

I suppose it comes down to the motivating factor and the background an individual has. If he is rebelling against teaching he has received and embracing some perceived "new liberty", then there is danger.

I would not call facial hair a sin or tell someone they are lost because of it, but I will agree with the elder. I don't like facial hair on Pentecostal men!
That's subjective.

I don't see any "attitude of arrogance and disregard for authority" following facial hair. That sounds more like a biased opinion that is colored by personal preference. People that believe this rule should be forced on everyone have to find some way to justify their unbiblical stance so they come up with arguments like MBs

[Praxeas]

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr255/KevArcher/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg (http://s489.photobucket.com/user/KevArcher/media/friends/IMG_1156_zps6010f6e4.jpg.html)

I'm thankful for this precious man of God. Bro Ballestero was our guest speaker this year as we celebrated our Tenth Pastoral Anniversary. He has been a wonderful friend to both my family and the church that I'm privileged to Pastor. I'm thankful for men with personal convictions.
Good men can and have been wrong before.

[CC1]

Good men can and have been wrong before.

True. According to my wife I am wrong a lot.:happydance

[Sean]

Guys, I have personal standards that I "must" keep, many of them are lined up with UPC/Apostolic doctrines, but they, in my point of view, define me when I am out in the day to day life.

Many of the Christian friends I have say about me, that Sean is 'weak", therefore he must live that way.
My wife hears it alot in those circles of family and friends.
But I have seen many of these friends over the years, slipping away into drinking, worldly concerts, wine tasting(I live in wine country), wearing immodest attire, etc(and they were UPC all their life for the most part).

My standards have greatly helped me not go down that path. I havent been to church in almost 2 years and still have them. Thank you Jesus for this "city of refuge" they call 'standards".

[Praxeas]

Those criticizing the Elder's blog entry on facial hair, should also read his blog entry entitled "Show Me in the Bible". Very good follow up to a controversial topic.
I got an idea. You read it then we can discuss facial hair here.

MB even admits in his blog that men in the bible had facial hair..Godly men

"The wearing of beards was certainly mentioned in the Bible. The case could be made that most of our heroes in the Old Testament wore facial hair.
Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures."

BTW It wasn't just these black men that wore facial hair. White preachers did too...MB goes on to introduce race in the next post

However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear.

What needs to be understood is there was already a movement before Pentecostalism. It crept into our churches just like Sunday School, clergy and a bunch of other things we got passed down from all those Trinitarian churches.

Even the Mormons don't do facial hair. That bothers me if we are gonna make comparisons like uncut hair and witches.

In fact the No facial hair stuff started with ROME and others like her long ago


July 16, 1054

In what would mark the split between Eastern and Western Christianity, a French cardinal delivers a papal bull (http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf) excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople. The document's list of "heresies" ends by citing the churches' division over beards: "Because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church."


Read here the history of facial hair in Christianity

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september/wars-over-christian-beards.html

[Abiding Now]

What's really amazing to me? Some folks are so holy, but never attend church. Never support a church. They evidently don't even need the fellowship that a church family can offer. They can't find one that suits their super spiritual persona, but yet they have all the answers from doctrine to finances for every church family within a 1,000 miles. :icecream

[Sean]

Ive learned never to judge a man until you have walked in his shoes.

[AR Pastor]

What's really amazing to me? Some folks are so holy, but never attend church. Never support a church. They evidently don't even need the fellowship that a church family can offer. They can't find one that suits their super spiritual persona, but yet they have all the answers from doctrine to finances for every church family within a 1,000 miles. :icecream

:thumbsup

[Abiding Now]

Ive learned never to judge a man until you have walked in his shoes.

I have heard something similar. "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes". Then you can judge him all you want because you are a mile away, you have his shoes and he will never catch you.

[KeptByTheWord]

Pharisaical man-made doctrines and standards will always be with us, at least they have been for 2000+ years. If one is removed, another will take its place.

It is the nature of man to have something in his life that he feels makes him holier unto the Lord than his other fellow men. The Pharisees were constantly adding and changing the law to suit themselves. Things have not changed, 2000+ years later.

The only thing that will replace and change Pharisaical "holier-than-thou" attitudes and mindsets is when one realizes that standards won't save you, but a genuine personal humble repentant relationship with the Lord Jesus will. If the Lord convicts you of something, you do it unto the Lord, and don't expect to impose it upon anyone else, but yourself.

There are a multitude of different dogmas, doctrines, standards, and teachings within the OP ranks, and most churches differ from pastor to pastor. What needs to happen is an acceptance and understanding that the Lord brings conviction individually to our lives, and we must live out our convictions unto the Lord, and not for the praise or respect of man.

[Kevin Archer]

Good men can and have been wrong before.

True. No disagreement with you on that.

[MissBrattified]

I agree with Elder Ballestero I know y'all are shocked.

So did my Dad--but he didn't treat people poorly over it, or worse, keep Apostolic men with beards off his platform. Being personally conservative doesn't excuse ungodly exclusivity--particularly when it comes to excluding other Apostolics from the Church GOD has made them a part of.

Our separation from the world should be a natural result of following God's Word; not a manufactured result of playing the endless game of trying to set ourselves apart from the world. That was the problem with the OT system--there could never be enough rules to cover all the new sins. There could never be enough rules to keep people from thinking of sin and being tempted.

When we align ourselves with God's Word and walk after the Spirit, the separation happens naturally. No made up rules are necessary.

I realize that you have the view that it's a sin for anyone in your church, because you've made the rule and people who don't obey the rule are sinning. I get the obedience thing. However, I think it's a shame to make a rule that puts people in that position simply because you don't LIKE something. Why create a sin?

[Truthseeker]

I have serious doubt's a pastor can make facial hair a sin. No more than a pharisee can make not washing hands a sin.

[Steve Epley]

So did my Dad--but he didn't treat people poorly over it, or worse, keep Apostolic men with beards off his platform. Being personally conservative doesn't excuse ungodly exclusivity--particularly when it comes to excluding other Apostolics from the Church GOD has made them a part of.

Our separation from the world should be a natural result of following God's Word; not a manufactured result of playing the endless game of trying to set ourselves apart from the world. That was the problem with the OT system--there could never be enough rules to cover all the new sins. There could never be enough rules to keep people from thinking of sin and being tempted.

When we align ourselves with God's Word and walk after the Spirit, the separation happens naturally. No made up rules are necessary.

I realize that you have the view that it's a sin for anyone in your church, because you've made the rule and people who don't obey the rule are sinning. I get the obedience thing. However, I think it's a shame to make a rule that puts people in that position simply because you don't LIKE something. Why create a sin?

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

[ILG]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

You can have a rule. But when you say I have made this rule and I am the pastor and you have to obey me and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and rebellion and witchcraft are sins, you make your rule salvational. There's where the line gets crossed.

[Sean]

Guys, I dont have a beard. But we as the Lords' church, are to mimic in doctrine and experience, the early church. All I know is Jesus had a beard, and if he lived today, in person, he would not be allowed to minister in some churches. It is a personal preference thing, but has no reflection of the "inner man" at all.

King James Bible
I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

[Steve Epley]

Guys, I dont have a beard. But we as the Lords' church, are to mimic in doctrine and experience, the early church. All I know is Jesus had a beard, and if he lived today, in person, he would not be allowed to minister in some churches. It is a personal preference thing, but has no reflection of the "inner man" at all.

King James Bible
I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

I don't know if Jesus had a beard or not and neither do you. This verse only says they plucked the hair off His cheeks. When I was younger on any evening even if I had shaved that morning you could have plucked hair off my cheeks and I never had a beard. Just saying. He could have and the apostles also but we don't know that do we? However if he did indeed have a beard it was not a trimmed styled beard for that was forbidden by the law. You guys want a beard then there were regulations concerning them look at the Orthodox Jews and Amish for that example. I didn't think so.:)

[AR Pastor]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

I agree, good post

[crakjak]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

You are not the armed forces, you did not hire, nor do you pay folks to come to your church. To make such a rule is to tithe on the mint, hopefully you are not ignoring the weightier things of the law. Oh wait a minute, you are under grace not law.

LOL, I know you treat folks with respect, however your efforts could reach much more of those in your community, if you would focus on the things of the heart, and ignore the rants of your brethren that judge you on such matters. Reach out with Jesus to the greater local community and forget preaching around to the choir. You are independent aren't you?

[Kevin Archer]

You are not the armed forces, you did not hire, nor do you pay folks to come to your church. To make such a rule is to tithe on the mint, hopefully you are not ignoring the weightier things of the law. Oh wait a minute, you are under grace not law.

LOL, I know you treat folks with respect, however your efforts could reach much more of those in your community, if you would focus on the things of the heart, and ignore the rants of your brethren that judge you on such matters. Reach out with Jesus to the greater local community and forget preaching around to the choir. You are independent aren't you?

This is assuming that he only preaches what he does for the approval of the "brethren". I'm amazed that one can know what's in the heart of another... That doesn't add up to what the scripture says about who knows everyones heart....
If you think that Bro Epley preaches what he preaches for the acceptance of the "brethren", you obviously have never met him or do not know him at all.

[Rudy]

I don't know if Jesus had a beard or not and neither do you. This verse only says they plucked the hair off His cheeks. When I was younger on any evening even if I had shaved that morning you could have plucked hair off my cheeks and I never had a beard. Just saying. He could have and the apostles also but we don't know that do we? However if he did indeed have a beard it was not a trimmed styled beard for that was forbidden by the law. You guys want a beard then there were regulations concerning them look at the Orthodox Jews and Amish for that example. I didn't think so.:)

He was a rabbi, it was required.

[crakjak]

This is assuming that he only preaches what he does for the approval of the "brethren". I'm amazed that one can know what's in the heart of another... That doesn't add up to what the scripture says about who knows everyones heart....
If you think that Bro Epley preaches what he preaches for the acceptance of the "brethren", you obviously have never met him or do not know him at all.

I only know Bro. Steve from our years on this forum, so your defense of him is fair, and appropriate.

However, I have had a great deal of experience around the ultra-conservative apostolics, and the tensions that exist among them.

I know that Bro. Epley preaches among them quite a lot, so I don't think my statements are too unreasonable.

Of course, it is possible that these statements do not apply to our friend at all, and that I am wrong.

I do have a good deal respect for Bro. Steve, the fact that he can and does communicate on this forum with all its "heretics" shows that he is a different kind of UC. LOL

[ILG]

I do have a good deal respect for Bro. Steve, the fact that he can and does communicate on this forum with all its "heretics" shows that he is a different kind of UC. LOL

I don't know, he completely ignores me.

[jfrog]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

I could not agree more with the bolded. When a man decides he is going to wear facial hair in an apostolic church there is alot more going on than just facial hair.

1. He first had to read the bible himself and realize the bible doesn't condemn beard wearing men.

2. He also had to knowingly disregard the pastors preferences in hopes that his beard wearing would help keep someone from turning away from Christ.

3. The wearing of a beard in an apostolic church indicates that the man both knows his bible and has a strong will. It doesn't surprise me most pastors that preach against wearing beards know that such a man won't stay under their ministry long.

[kclee4jc]

I don't know, he completely ignores me.

lol

[crakjak]

I could not agree more with the bolded. When a man decides he is going to wear facial hair in an apostolic church there is alot more going on than just facial hair.

1. He first had to read the bible himself and realize the bible doesn't condemn beard wearing men.

2. He also had to knowingly disregard the pastors preferences in hopes that his beard wearing would help keep someone from turning away from Christ.

3. The wearing of a beard in an apostolic church indicates that the man both knows his bible and has a strong will. It doesn't surprise me most pastors that preach against wearing beards know that such a man won't stay under their ministry long.

It is the exceptional leader that can lead men or women, that are stronger than him or her self, and therefore allows themselves to grow. Leadership is tough, and we all are human.

[Rudy]

Come to think of it, it seems most gay men are clean shaven. Come out from among them!

[MissBrattified]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

I don't have a problem with churches having rules, although it's not my "favorite thing" when they push too far to the extra-biblical side. I do have a problem when they are preached as if they are sins when they aren't, as opposed to being presented for exactly what they are--pastoral preference.

I most definitely have a problem when Christian liberty is at stake and other men of God are disfellowshipped, excluded or talked badly about because they are, well, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Like I said, my Dad didn't care for facial hair on men, either. However, he didn't make it a point of fellowship with other ministers and he occasionally had men with beards on his platform. IMO, he was tolerant because it wasn't a scriptural issue; it was a personal preference. Mind you, he never stated that motive to me; that's my inference based on his actions and acceptance of ministers/Apostolic men with beards.

FTR, I agree somewhat with your last statement, but only as it applies to the local congregation. Pastoral preference shouldn't extend beyond the walls of the local congregation, IMO. Saints should be taught to be tolerant of other Christians who are living for God and don't measure up to their home church teachings--and they should be taught that by their local church leaders' example. What I see far too often is saints taking what their pastor teaches for the *home church* and applying that as a measuring stick to other Apostolics from other churches with different pastors.

[jfrog]

I don't have a problem with churches having rules, although it's not my "favorite thing" when they push too far to the extra-biblical side. I do have a problem when they are preached as if they are sins when they aren't, as opposed to being presented for exactly what they are--pastoral preference.

I most definitely have a problem when Christian liberty is at stake and other men of God are disfellowshipped, excluded or talked badly about because they are, well, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Like I said, my Dad didn't care for facial hair on men, either. However, he didn't make it a point of fellowship with other ministers and he occasionally had men with beards on his platform. IMO, he was tolerant because it wasn't a scriptural issue; it was a personal preference. Mind you, he never stated that motive to me; that's my inference based on his actions and acceptance of ministers/Apostolic men with beards.

FTR, I agree somewhat with your last statement, but only as it applies to the local congregation. Pastoral preference shouldn't extend beyond the walls of the local congregation, IMO. Saints should be taught to be tolerant of other Christians who are living for God and don't measure up to their home church teachings--and they should be taught that by their local church leaders' example. What I see far too often is saints taking what their pastor teaches for the *home church* and applying that as a measuring stick to other Apostolics from other churches with different pastors.

I don't understand why a pastors individual preference should affect anyone other than the pastor. If the pastor doesn't like facial hair then let him not have any. How does his dislike of facial hair or anything else give him a right to make that a church rule regarding something extra biblical. I don't understand how such a thought process can ever be justified.

I understand if they are basing rules off bible passages, but to have extra rules outside those passages, that I do not understand.

[Steve Epley]

I don't have a problem with churches having rules, although it's not my "favorite thing" when they push too far to the extra-biblical side. I do have a problem when they are preached as if they are sins when they aren't, as opposed to being presented for exactly what they are--pastoral preference.

I most definitely have a problem when Christian liberty is at stake and other men of God are disfellowshipped, excluded or talked badly about because they are, well, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Like I said, my Dad didn't care for facial hair on men, either. However, he didn't make it a point of fellowship with other ministers and he occasionally had men with beards on his platform. IMO, he was tolerant because it wasn't a scriptural issue; it was a personal preference. Mind you, he never stated that motive to me; that's my inference based on his actions and acceptance of ministers/Apostolic men with beards.

FTR, I agree somewhat with your last statement, but only as it applies to the local congregation. Pastoral preference shouldn't extend beyond the walls of the local congregation, IMO. Saints should be taught to be tolerant of other Christians who are living for God and don't measure up to their home church teachings--and they should be taught that by their local church leaders' example. What I see far too often is saints taking what their pastor teaches for the *home church* and applying that as a measuring stick to other Apostolics from other churches with different pastors.

Here is how it works here and those I fellowship. If a guy wants facial hair I have many Pentecostal neighbors that would be glad to have them. They can go there. Very simple. If a preacher wants to fellowship guys who promote facial hair fine with me but I am not going to. Just not having it here if a man claims to be a member. By the way all these years it has never been a problem I can't remember losing one man over this issue. I have been honest never told them it was a sin but a decision I have made and I am not going to change. Never mistreated anyone with facial hair and not going to start.

[Praxeas]

Yet you would have no problem with the Armed Forces having a rule, McDonalds having a rule, a bank having a rule, any job place having a rule.
I have never said it was a sin for a man to have facial hair however I think it identifies them more with the world than the church. Today I see facial hair as being directional and from what I have witnessed through the years I am convinced. When a person chooses to standout from among the saints and Apostolic ministry something is going on besides liking facial hair it is an indicator.

God's church is not your army, your business or bank. Making that comparison is seriously flawed.

Most people I know or know of "in the world" have clean shaved faces. Most politicians. Most police. Most brokers and bankers. Most professional sports figures.

[barry72]

Personal preferences are for personal use. As many have stated, we treat men with facial hair like their soul is in danger. I would argue that the Pastor who enforces such rule is in more danger than the one with facial hair. After all, it's God's church. Who are you to tell me I can't minster in God's church because I have facial hair? Most men making a big deal over saints with facial hair have internal issues they are struggling with themselves. Yes, pastors struggle with sin too. Quit creating stumbling blocks for your saints, and focus on removing the plank out of your own eye.

Please pray for my rebellious spirit.

[kclee4jc]

Here is how it works here and those I fellowship. If a guy wants facial hair I have many Pentecostal neighbors that would be glad to have them. They can go there. Very simple. If a preacher wants to fellowship guys who promote facial hair fine with me but I am not going to. Just not having it here if a man claims to be a member. By the way all these years it has never been a problem I can't remember losing one man over this issue. I have been honest never told them it was a sin but a decision I have made and I am not going to change. Never mistreated anyone with facial hair and not going to start.

This is balance IMO.

A standard against facial hair is a good tradition. Despite what some may say, there is nothing wrong with having good traditions.

[AR Pastor]

Here is how it works here and those I fellowship. If a guy wants facial hair I have many Pentecostal neighbors that would be glad to have them. They can go there. Very simple. If a preacher wants to fellowship guys who promote facial hair fine with me but I am not going to. Just not having it here if a man claims to be a member. By the way all these years it has never been a problem I can't remember losing one man over this issue. I have been honest never told them it was a sin but a decision I have made and I am not going to change. Never mistreated anyone with facial hair and not going to start.

I feel the same way.

As you said I have never lost a man over this issue. Really never even preached about it. When they come in and get the Holy Ghost the facial hair comes off.

[kclee4jc]

No one in our church has facial hair. I've seen many come in and shave. Never heard it preached on at our church. Maybe mentioned in passing a few times.

What is strange to me is facial hair is hardly ever mentioned and there has bee no issue with it. Yet my pastor spends a great deal preaching against television and sports and many refuse to give it up. I guess it's easier to shave than actually get cut off ties to the world. Go figure.

If people are going to backslide...seems like facial hair will be the least of the issues.

[jfrog]

No one in our church has facial hair. I've seen many come in and shave. Never heard it preached on at our church. Maybe mentioned in passing a few times.

I love how people act like its some kind of holy ghost conviction that causes people to shave beards and ladies to start wearing only skirts.

It's not a holy ghost conviction. It's called wanting to fit in.

[navygoat1998]

I love how people act like its some kind of holy ghost conviction that causes people to shave beards and ladies to start wearing only skirts.

It's not a holy ghost conviction. It's called wanting to fit in.

:thumbsup

[AR Pastor]

Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things. I will say that I have never had a man in the church I pastor grow facial hair. And I have never preached on it that I can remember.

I have hear men testify that the Lord convicted them of it. Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

[Sean]

Back in 79, it was not the Lord that told me to cut my hair and shave, the pastor would not baptize me unless I did it first(and I had to agree to tithing)

[Praxeas]

I don't know, he completely ignores me.

Do u have a beard? :-)

[Rudy]

Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things. I will say that I have never had a man in the church I pastor grow facial hair. And I have never preached on it that I can remember.

I have hear men testify that the Lord convicted them of it. Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

Wonder why God doesn't convict our Black brothers?

[jfrog]

Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things. I will say that I have never had a man in the church I pastor grow facial hair. And I have never preached on it that I can remember.

I have hear men testify that the Lord convicted them of it. Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

Yep. The pendulum sure can swing way to far in the opposite direction.

[AR Pastor]

Wonder why God doesn't convict our Black brothers?

I have two black pastor friends and neither have facial hair and neither do the men in their churches.

[Praxeas]

No one in our church has facial hair. I've seen many come in and shave. Never heard it preached on at our church. Maybe mentioned in passing a few times.

What is strange to me is facial hair is hardly ever mentioned and there has bee no issue with it. Yet my pastor spends a great deal preaching against television and sports and many refuse to give it up. I guess it's easier to shave than actually get cut off ties to the world. Go figure.

If people are going to backslide...seems like facial hair will be the least of the issues.

I know from 30 years of experience it doesn't have to be preached. They hear it from the saints. "When are you gonna shave?" Etc

[Praxeas]

Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things. I will say that I have never had a man in the church I pastor grow facial hair. And I have never preached on it that I can remember.

I have hear men testify that the Lord convicted them of it. Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

Why haven't you ever preached or taught against facial hair?

[navygoat1998]

I know from 30 years of experience it doesn't have to be preached. They hear it from the saints. "When are you gonna shave?" Etc

:thumbsup

[jfrog]

I know from 30 years of experience it doesn't have to be preached. They hear it from the saints. "When are you gonna shave?" Etc

:thumbsup

[Reader]

Here is how it works here and those I fellowship. If a guy wants facial hair I have many Pentecostal neighbors that would be glad to have them. They can go there. Very simple. If a preacher wants to fellowship guys who promote facial hair fine with me but I am not going to. Just not having it here if a man claims to be a member.

What of the person who attends and is not a member? Would you approach them about it or would someone else in the church? If so, when? Second, third, fourth visit? If they did not shave after then, would you also tell them to leave?

It is one thing to have a standard in your church and another to cut off fellowship of ministers and churches who do not believe the same especially when you admit it is not a sin. If a bearded pastor asked you to speak at the church where he pastors, you would turn him down due to him having a beard?

[Reader]

Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

In other words, you believe every Christian man who has facial hair doesn't really want to live for God?

[Reader]

God's church is not your army, your business or bank. Making that comparison is seriously flawed.

Something Ruth Rieder would teach.

[Michael The Disciple]

This is all so outrageous. MEN.............forcing their own will and traditions on people who want to serve God. Refusing them to be part of their "Church" then condemning them to trillions upon trillions of unending trillions of years burning in the flames of Hell because they don't go to Church.

Once they are barred FROM Church then preach them to Hell because they don't go to Church!!

[AR Pastor]

Why haven't you ever preached or taught against facial hair?

NO need to , we never had it here.

[jfrog]

NO need to , we never had it here.

I'm sure. For most new converts its enough to hear from other members of their church that the pastor doesn't agree with facial hair on men.

[Reader]

I'm sure. For most new converts its enough to hear from other members of their church that the pastor doesn't agree with facial hair on men.

Before I ever stepped foot in an Apostolic church I heard the standards and not from any minister.

[Rudy]

I have two black pastor friends and neither have facial hair and neither do the men in their churches.

The PAW--COOLJC--Bible way, etc allow facial hair. You know some that don't vs the huge numbers that do.

I don't see your logic.

[Michael The Disciple]

Are these "Apostolic" preachers hypocrites?

Consider this.

This verse is used for women.

A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God. Duet. 22:5

This all boils down to women wearing pants. They shall go to Hell if they do it.

Note it is in the Old Testament. Duet. 22:5

They are fine with that.

BUT NOW let us look at another verse in the Old Testament.

“‘You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

You shall not cut your beard!

My Apostolic friends on what authority does one get to cherry pick the verses we are to apply?

If Dueteronomy 22:5 can be applied to women today why cant Leviticus 19:27 be applied to men today?

Both verses are under the Old Covenant. We all know this. Why would if one be applied to the saints would not the other?

If we have to obey the OT then all these "Apostolic" preachers are not only disobedient to the God of Heaven they have taught multitudes to follow their rebellion!

Get the point? Are they hypocrites?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

[AR Pastor]

The PAW--COOLJC--Bible way, etc allow facial hair. You know some that don't vs the huge numbers that do.

I don't see your logic.

I don't wish to argue with anyone.

I agree with bro. Ballestero and so do many Apostolic of every race.

You do as you wish. But I as Bro. Epley has said don't want it here and will not fellowship those who do. I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters.

And I have all the fellowship I need.

[Praxeas]

NO need to , we never had it here.

So you don't preach against worldliness or sins? What about pants on women, makeup or jewelry?

[Rudy]

I don't wish to argue with anyone.

I agree with bro. Ballestero and so do many Apostolic of every race.

You do as you wish. But I as Bro. Epley has said don't want it here and will not fellowship those who do. I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters.

And I have all the fellowship I need.

Ok no problem. But if you are going to come on here voicing your beliefs and opinions expect challenges.

[Michael The Disciple]

I don't wish to argue with anyone.

I agree with bro. Ballestero and so do many Apostolic of every race.

You do as you wish. But I as Bro. Epley has said don't want it here and will not fellowship those who do. I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters.

And I have all the fellowship I need.

So since Jesus and his apostles had beards you would not fellowship them. I get it.

[KeptByTheWord]

So since Jesus and his apostles had beards you would not fellowship them. I get it.

lol... amazing concept to grasp isn't it!

[AR Pastor]

So you don't preach against worldliness or sins? What about pants on women, makeup or jewelry?

Preach against all these

[AR Pastor]

Ok no problem. But if you are going to come on here voicing your beliefs and opinions expect challenges.

Just came on saying agree with bro Ballestero and I do. If you don't that is your business.

[ILG]

Do u have a beard? :-)

Yes. :ursofunny

[ILG]

I know from 30 years of experience it doesn't have to be preached. They hear it from the saints. "When are you gonna shave?" Etc

Peer pressure works wonders. Then the pastor can say it's "Holy Ghost conviction".

[Reader]

You do as you wish. But I as Bro. Epley has said don't want it here and will not fellowship those who do. I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters.

And I have all the fellowship I need.

Sad and says much. All because a man chooses to let his whiskers grow.

It appears you men consider yourself above those who do not shave. Or perhaps you are weak and your Holy Ghost isn't strong enough to keep you from falling into that awful snare of allowing facial hair, so you must separate yourselves.

Isn't there a group in the Bible that were considered the separated ones?

[Reader]

So since Jesus and his apostles had beards you would not fellowship them. I get it.

Michael, guess you need not ever visit any of these men. Sad. Very sad to separate from those of like precious faith over facial hair.

[Steve Epley]

What of the person who attends and is not a member? Would you approach them about it or would someone else in the church? If so, when? Second, third, fourth visit? If they did not shave after then, would you also tell them to leave?

It is one thing to have a standard in your church and another to cut off fellowship of ministers and churches who do not believe the same especially when you admit it is not a sin. If a bearded pastor asked you to speak at the church where he pastors, you would turn him down due to him having a beard?

I can honestly say I have never approached anyone about this issue I have had them approach me noticing we are all clean shaven and I have told them just what I said here. Never has been a problem. We have visitors all time with beards I have never insulted them. No I would not preach for a man that had a beard unless the Lord told me to.

[Steve Epley]

This is all so outrageous. MEN.............forcing their own will and traditions on people who want to serve God. Refusing them to be part of their "Church" then condemning them to trillions upon trillions of unending trillions of years burning in the flames of Hell because they don't go to Church.

Once they are barred FROM Church then preach them to Hell because they don't go to Church!!

My Brother I say this with kindness why wouldn't you just shave? You speak of will but there you too have a will.

[Reader]

Thank you for your honest response and for not insulting visitors. When would you approach a visitor if they were attending for weeks and never approached you or shaved?

[Steve Epley]

Are these "Apostolic" preachers hypocrites?

Consider this.

This verse is used for women.

A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God. Duet. 22:5

This all boils down to women wearing pants. They shall go to Hell if they do it.

Note it is in the Old Testament. Duet. 22:5

They are fine with that.

BUT NOW let us look at another verse in the Old Testament.

“‘You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

You shall not cut your beard!

My Apostolic friends on what authority does one get to cherry pick the verses we are to apply?

If Dueteronomy 22:5 can be applied to women today why cant Leviticus 19:27 be applied to men today?

Both verses are under the Old Covenant. We all know this. Why would if one be applied to the saints would not the other?

If we have to obey the OT then all these "Apostolic" preachers are not only disobedient to the God of Heaven they have taught multitudes to follow their rebellion!

Get the point? Are they hypocrites?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

This is only saying IF they have a beard it cannot be styled. Yet all these guys want styled beards. Not you but the others.

[Reader]

My Brother I say this with kindness why wouldn't you just shave? You speak of will but there you too have a will.

But why should he have to when you admit it is not a sin? People make fun of Baptist teaching that you can be saved without being water baptized but cannot be a member of the Baptist church without it. Why are you and some others causing this to be a point of division? What brought this about?

[MissBrattified]

Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things. I will say that I have never had a man in the church I pastor grow facial hair. And I have never preached on it that I can remember.

I have hear men testify that the Lord convicted them of it. Say what you will doesn't matter God does convict those who really want to live for God.

I think it's perfectly fine for people to have personal convictions. If a person abides by something personally because God dealt with them because of their attitude or an association, they should definitely follow His leading. However, the mistake is in assuming the whole church needs to follow the those personal things in order to be right with God.

Your last statement is pretty offensive, because it implies that anyone who thinks it's fine to wear a beard or hasn't been convicted of it doesn't "really want to live for God." It's silly and unbiblical.

I don't wish to argue with anyone.

AR Pastor, blogs are for statements without feedback; forums are for discussion. It's the whole point.

I agree with bro. Ballestero and so do many Apostolic of every race.

You do as you wish. But I as Bro. Epley has said don't want it here and will not fellowship those who do. I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters.

And I have all the fellowship I need.

I find this incredibly disheartening. As a church, we should want to fellowship with the whole body of believers; not just the ones who agree with us on every little thing.

[Sean]

I was just kinda wonderin, if I go capmpin or huntin for a few days and cant shave, I look pretty scruffy....Am i a sinnin?

Or does it have to grow more than an inch or somethin?

[Reader]

They didn't say it was a sin.

[Michael The Disciple]

My Brother I say this with kindness why wouldn't you just shave? You speak of will but there you too have a will.

My Brother,

If YHWH said having a beard was sinful it would have been gone decades ago. Why should I shave my God given beard because YOU and others don't like beards?

Now would it be ok if I started a doctrine, men cannot wear suits and come to my Church! Would it be ok? After all suits are expensive. Politicians and salesman wear them. Hollywood actors are seen in them frequently! So why should not I began to teach because of these things OUR MEN must not wear a suit?

Should not everyone then OBEY MY WORD? Hmmm?

[Steve Epley]

Thank you for your honest response and for not insulting visitors. When would you approach a visitor if they were attending for weeks and never approached you or shaved?

Over 40 years of pastoring it has never happened. Folks who want to be part of a church generally look around and see and if they want to come they fit in with browbeating them. Kindness works better than legislation.

[MissBrattified]

My Brother I say this with kindness why wouldn't you just shave? You speak of will but there you too have a will.

I just can't understand the need to make men shave, even to "test" their consecration. There are enough biblical mandates that do precisely that without having to add to the Word.

I really can't wrap my head around this issue. The main problem for me is that there's not a shred of scripture to back it up. It would be like making women wearing pantyhose a point of fellowship, and then calling it rebellion or a bad attitude if they don't want to wear them all the time (especially talking about women outside your own congregation, ministers' wives, other people's saints). It's that arbitrary and extraneous to Christian living.

[Rudy]

Good grief, a hundred years since Azuza and we're talking about facial hair.

[Truthseeker]

Here is how it works here and those I fellowship. If a guy wants facial hair I have many Pentecostal neighbors that would be glad to have them. They can go there. Very simple. If a preacher wants to fellowship guys who promote facial hair fine with me but I am not going to. Just not having it here if a man claims to be a member. By the way all these years it has never been a problem I can't remember losing one man over this issue. I have been honest never told them it was a sin but a decision I have made and I am not going to change. Never mistreated anyone with facial hair and not going to start.


If you don't allow someone with a beard to be used in church then you are are mistreating them.

[Truthseeker]

I can honestly say I have never approached anyone about this issue I have had them approach me noticing we are all clean shaven and I have told them just what I said here. Never has been a problem. We have visitors all time with beards I have never insulted them. No I would not preach for a man that had a beard unless the Lord told me to.



Did the Lord tell you to not preach for them? Did he tell you to teach against hair?

[ILG]

I wonder what sin having a beard leads to? It must be some sort of protection to be clean shaven, right? From????

[Truthseeker]

Michael, guess you need not ever visit any of these men. Sad. Very sad to separate from those of like precious faith over facial hair.

That's what the no facial hair preacher do. Dividing the body of Christ over hair on the face.

[Truthseeker]

I wonder what sin having a beard leads to? It must be some sort of protection to be clean shaven, right? From????

Leads to no gender distinction? Isn't that why God put facial hair on men and not women?

[Reader]

I wonder what sin having a beard leads to? It must be some sort of protection to be clean shaven, right? From????


Like uncut hair on women is protection?

[ILG]

Leads to no gender distinction? Isn't that why God put facial hair on men and not women?

No! God wants men to look like GIRLS! Sheesh, some people!:foottap

[ILG]

Like uncut hair on women is protection?

Yes. You see, separation from the world is what them standards is about, right? So, whutzit pertectin em from?

[AR Pastor]

And around and around we go.

Some say they shouldn't have to shave and they don't have to. But they want everyone to fellowship them and go against what they believe.

Let the bearded ones have their fellowship and then let us shaving men have ours. You can go many paces and nothing will be said, you have plenty of fellowship. So let us have ours and stop trying to make us accept something that we cannot. Let us have our fellowship.

How can two walk together except they agree?

[Reader]

No one was saying you would have to change your beliefs in order to fellowship with men who have beards. They can certainly have fellowship with you and not change theirs.

And if you truly believe it is not an issue of sin, why is this such a dividing teaching and stand?

Really now- you can have a church that teaches exactly as you with the sole exception of facial hair and you would consider them as unacceptable to fellowship.

[jfrog]

And around and around we go.

Some say they shouldn't have to shave and they don't have to. But they want everyone to fellowship them and go against what they believe.

Let the bearded ones have their fellowship and then let us shaving men have ours. You can go many paces and nothing will be said, you have plenty of fellowship. So let us have ours and stop trying to make us accept something that we cannot. Let us have our fellowship.

How can two walk together except they agree?

We can't even begin to understand why you feel it's wrong to fellowship with men that wear beards. It's totally beyond us. You admit it's not a sin just a preference. Then you turn your preference into a matter of fellowship. I just don't get it.

If you can explain why beards are a fellowship issue I'd be happy to move on. But I currently do not get why beards are a fellowship issue.

[shag]

We can't even begin to understand why you feel it's wrong to fellowship with men that wear beards. It's totally beyond us. You admit it's not a sin just a preference. Then you turn your preference into a matter of fellowship. I just don't get it.

If you can explain why beards are a fellowship issue I'd be happy to move on. But I currently do not get why beards are a fellowship issue.



Pride. Separation(division)just for the sake of separation. Stumbling block to the Kingdom.

[jfrog]

Pride. Stumbling block to the Kingdom.

Beards are prideful?

[AR Pastor]

We can't even begin to understand why you feel it's wrong to fellowship with men that wear beards. It's totally beyond us. You admit it's not a sin just a preference. Then you turn your preference into a matter of fellowship. I just don't get it.

If you can explain why beards are a fellowship issue I'd be happy to move on. But I currently do not get why beards are a fellowship issue.

I have found that those who allow facial hair and I disagree on other things as well.

There are other issues that I will not fellowship. Don't fellowship spiritual communion TV, Hollywood or any movie watchers either.

[Reader]

Jfrog, it would appear that they consider it some type of slippery slope. At least from a couple of the responses.

ARP stated "Every time I have seen a man grow facial hair he winds up going lib on other things." & " I have found that if we disagree on this matter we will disagree on other matters."

[Reader]

God forbid people have differences of opinion and varying standards! :foottap

[jfrog]

I have found that those who allow facial hair and I disagree on other things as well.

There are other issues that I will not fellowship. Don't fellowship spiritual communion TV, Hollywood or any movie watchers either.

Okay I can understand that. Would you fellowship with a beard wearer that agreed with you on everything else?

BTW.. I understand not fellowshipping with hollywood movie watchers much more than I understand not fellowshipping with beard wearers.

[AR Pastor]

Okay I can understand that. Would you fellowship with a beard wearer that agreed with you on everything else?

BTW.. I understand not fellowshipping with hollywood movie watchers much more than I understand not fellowshipping with beard wearers.

TO be honest probably not.