To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Have YOU been shaved since you first believed?

Yes...but then I really repented and grew it back. ;-)


Have mine own shaaaaaaave Lord
Have mine own shave!


I have a goaaaaateeeeeee
Thou hast thy blade!


Man scape and prune meeeeeee
As thou wilt!





*Im eating icecream and have given up stretching my brain writing tortured lyrics*

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Have YOU been shaved since you first believed?

Are you a pRAZOR of the Lord?

[Esaias]

I think most here aren't thinking about pastors teaching "Hey, best not to wear gang colors" but more along the lines of rules or standards regarding sleeve length, open toed shoes, and facial hair on men. Nobody is in danger of being shot or mugged because of those and similar issues (that I have ever heard of) so the question remains: What are the Scriptural guidelines for an overseer or an assembly making those rules for the brethren, and what if someone decides for example they are perfectly fine wearing short sleeves?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

If you're writing the above with my study in mind I believe you missed an important point--I never said the saints not wearing related gang colors was a Heaven or Hell issue. I said it was to help the saints with their witness to each other and to those outside their fellowship, and it was to protect them from being misidentified and possibly physically harmed or killed. But, as I indicated, this would be a known problem that the Church body could easily understand needed to be remedied.

This type of teaching was necessary to aid the Early Church spread the gospel throughout the various cultures of their world, and this same type of teaching is needed for the Church to do the same work today.

I can only respond little by little at the moment. Perhaps more tomorrow.

I may have missed the part about saints not wearing certain clothing not being a heaven or hell issue, but if I did--I can't say from memory one way or the other at this point--it is only because I don't think it matters one way or the other, in the end. Whatever the intention was, and however it was first received and practiced, heaven and hell aside, extra-Biblical mandates always, and I mean ALWAYS become doctrines that eventually get tied to one's salvation, one way or the other. Every fence gets turned into an ancient landmark and you get the idea. Little calves become sacred cows. It might not be in the first or even second generation, but it inevitably happens.

And that was my whole point about trying to solve church problems by going outside of the Scriptures instead of staying within them.

Complexities like holiness, modesty, church polity and government, ministry, membership and etc. cannot so easily be funneled down into simplicities. They have to be engaged at the same level of analysis as their complexities warrant. A complex problem has to be appreciated for its own nature. Simply mandating "no blue" because the Crips are around, else you might get shot is a too simple solution to the very complex problem of how a church should operate in the world in the face of danger. Just do "this" and all will be well won't work. It certainly doesn't solve the actual problem of gang violence, or how to evangelize gang members, and etc. If anything it might, in the long run, hurt the reputation of the church, because word of the standard will get out to the community, and it will get debated at large by some amount of people outside of the church, and the church may face accusations of kowtowing to the pressures a mere gang placed upon a society or community, or it might be accused of not trusting God alone for protection, or etc.

It is never going to quite play out how the original intentions seemed to suggest. That is the quintessential nature of all things related to extra-Biblical mandates, even ones not designed to have a heaven or hell effect.

All that man touches turns to dust. All that God touches turns to gold. The moment you introduce a man-centered, man-originated, man-created idea into God's eternal plan for the ages, you've added a proportionate level of corruption to the purposes and designs of the Almighty. You've tainted something the Lord will eventually have to work out of His people in order to purify them so that as He presents the church to Himself, He can do so knowing there won't be any spots, wrinkles, or any such things staining or otherwise imperfecting His people.

It has always been this way and it always will be. And in the process of this purification, a lot of people are going to end up hurt, embarrassed, confused, and some yes, even some are going to be lost in the end, not least of which those who took a once upon a time, so-called not "heaven or hell" standard and made it a requirement upon a child of God, threatening exposure and disfellowship and one's right standing with God if not obeyed to the eventual offense and scandalization of a saint in light. These fellows who have done so are the very spots on the church's feast of charity. And if they die or have already died in a place of unrepentance they have every right to wake up in the resurrection in a place of torment.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I can only respond little by little at the moment. Perhaps more tomorrow.

I may have missed the part about saints not wearing certain clothing not being a heaven or hell issue, but if I didn't--I can't say from memory one way or the other at this point--it is only because I don't think it matters one way or the other, in the end. Whatever the intention was, and however it was first received and practiced, heaven and hell aside, extra-Biblical mandates always, and I mean ALWAYS become doctrines that eventually get tied to one's salvation, one way or the other. Every fence gets turned into an ancient landmark and you get the idea. Little calves become sacred cows. It might not be in the first or even second generation, but it inevitably happens.

And that was my whole point about trying to solve church problems by going outside of the Scriptures instead of staying within them.

Complexities like holiness, modesty, church polity and government, ministry, membership and etc. cannot so easily be funneled down into simplicities. They have to be engaged at the same level of analysis as their complexities warrant. A complex problem has to be appreciated for its own nature. Simply mandating "no blue" because the Crips are around, else you might get shot is a too simple solution to the very complex problem of how a church should operate in the world in the face of danger. Just do "this" and all will be well won't work. It certainly doesn't solve the actual problem of gang violence, or how to evangelize gang members, and etc. If anything it might, in the long run, hurt the reputation of the church, because word of the standard will get out to the community, and it will get debated at large by some amount of people outside of the church, and the church may face accusations of kowtowing to the pressures a mere gang placed upon a society or community, or it might be accused of not trusting God alone for protection, or etc.

It is never going to quite play out how the original intentions seemed to suggest. That is the quintessential nature of all things related to extra-Biblical mandates, even ones not designed to have a heaven or hell effect.

All that man touches turns to dust. All that God touches turns to gold. The moment you introduce a man-centered, man-originated, man-created idea into God's eternal plan for the ages, you've added a proportionate level of corruption to the purposes and designs of the Almighty. You've tainted something the Lord will eventually have to work out of His people in order to purify them so that as He presents the church to Himself, He can do so knowing there won't be any spots, wrinkles, or any such things staining or otherwise imperfecting His people.

It has always been this way and it always will be. And in the process of this purification, a lot of people are going to end up hurt, embarrassed, confused, and some yes, even some are going to be lost in the end, not least of which those who took a once upon a time, so-called not "heaven or hell" standard and made it a requirement upon a child of God, threatening exposure and disfellowship and one's right standing with God if not obeyed to the eventual offense and scandalization of a saint in light. These fellows who have done so are the very spots on the church's feast of charity. And if they die or have already died in a place of unrepentance they have every right to wake up in the resurrection in a place of torment.

Also, will you demonstrate how the kind of teaching you have given us was necessary to "aid the Early Church spread the gospel throughout the various cultures of their world"?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Acts 15 begins with a group of Pharisee converts requiring the Gentile converts to be circumcised and follow Moses Law "for salvation." Paul and Barnabas disagreed and stated that this salvation came with the Gentiles receiving the same Holy Ghost as they received. Peter faced this fellowship dilemma when he was sent to the Gentile house of Cornelius. Likewise, he was shown the Holy Ghost decided what God deemed clean and unclean. So, in Acts 15, the Apostolic council of apostles and elders decided to establish a means by which the Gentile brethren could fellowship their Jewish brethren while not offending them--but nowhere does it say the Gentiles' adherence to this decision was Heaven and Hell. Instead, to the Gentiles, it says, "If you do this, you will do well." (Acts 15:29)

It is clearly implicit because the pollutions of idolatry, that is to say, the fornication and eating raw, strangled animals still with blood in them as part of ritualistic idolatry are actually anti-Torah. Therefore they are Torah mandates that determine heaven or hell for the one(s) who disobey, whether Jew or Gentile.

I know you realize this. It's clear. So, even if James or the others never officially said Gentiles must do these things in order to be saved, their salvation was nonetheless dependent upon their obedience.

You using Bro. Benincasa as an example is like this. He did not do what he did because he feared damnation, but, instead, he did it as a matter of fellowship. That said, unlike the Jerusalem Council, that brother had no legitimate reason to ask Bro. Benincasa to do as he requested. So, I agree with your conclusion about acting out of love.

You make my point. The Jerusalem Council had every right to make their decisions binding because they had legitimate reasons for making those decisions, specifically they had Torah regulations already in place. The brother did not, as you admit. I agree.

But I also agree with Brother Benincasa's decision, because as far as I can tell from the story, he cared more about his brother's conscience than he did about his Fu Manchu, and rightly so. So, impose upon yourself whatever extra-Biblical mandates you feel you need to in order to gain your brother, instead of risking losing him. Paul said as much about not eating certain foods if they make his brother to offend. But he also made it clear ordering people to abstain from certain foods is a demonic doctrine that cannot be tolerated. So, shave if your close brother is going to offend over it, but never let him command you to shave.

However, we aren't talking in this thread, or at least I wasn't, about a brother asking for a favor, to make peace through an oath. We are or at least I am, talking about elders and leaders who, not just as brothers asking for favors who desire to keep their consciences undefiled, are actually giving orders coupled with threats of a punitive nature if compliance is not received because they claim not complying actually defiles you. These are two very different things.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Ehud

What got me rolling in all of this was the idea that any and all extra-biblical rules are inappropriate, or, more specifically, turning the bride of Christ into a whore. The closest example I have to what I'm referring to is this:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. -- 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (KJV)

So if you're asking for a verse indicating that a pastor can just make stuff up and send someone to hell for something extra-biblical, I don't have it, and I certainly don't agree that the conept is okay. But if we have souls to win, the idea that rules regarding facial hair, attire, etc is somehow idolatry doesn't make any sense to me. In whatever culture a specific rule is presented, it should be easy to present to the assembly.

Sunday School was referred to as an extra-biblical ministry. Are we not supposed spread the gospel? Is it somehow inappropriate to feed those in the community and teach them the bible? So yes, we have a rule regarding the presence of multiple adults. Surely the need for such a ministry and the wisdom of such a rule isn't lost because the parents are deadbeats. Are we sinning or creating idols by trying to reach the community in which we live?

My apologies for not being able to answer your questions directly, but I don't think a defense of my position requires much more than "whatever it takes to reach the lost." And just in case someone wants to be a smart aleck, no, I'm not talking about compromising morals in order to make that happen. I won't be telling my wife to play the role of stripper in order to reach those in the pole-dancing community. But if I move to an area in which the leadership and congregation agree that to best serve the community is to avoid facial hair, the color red, and eating of Chinese food, then I will likely observe those rules without hesitation. I say likely only because I will certainly ask for the why, and if I think they are just whackos, I would move on to another assembly.

Please bear with me, as I want to respond to you and address your points above, but only, obviously, as time allows. I will endeavor to return soon to this post.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

But no one is facing the First Century Romans or Jewish Priesthood today, are they? But, there are churches today who do face gang dangers, right? So, what is your point?

Are you saying a church deciding it is in their best interest to not appear the member of a gang they are facing today is a bad thing? Instead, they should wear that gang color like a banner and go forth in prayer and fasting in Jesus name? Is that your "solution"?

Wouldn't that "solution" in itself be a kind of church standard? Also, with the dangers your "solution" might create, wouldn't it also be a disobedience to the command to "not test the LORD your God."? (Mat 4:7)

Please, correct me if I misunderstood your post.

Yes, I think you misunderstood my post. Maybe not, though.

My point above is that, under horrific duress, persecution, arrest, humiliation, bodily punishment, the threat and actual loss of life, at the hands of the Romans and Aristocratic Judeans, the church not once added an extra-Biblical mandate in order to protect itself, but instead turned to prayer and fasting and rejoiced always.

So, if a church in gangland is the true church, instead of worrying itself over what to do about troubles it might have on its hands, why not convene an Acts 5 prayer meeting and let God shake the place?

Which is more productive in the long run? Which glorifies God and gives the people of God a testimony? Which is going to change the nature of the situation on the ground?

Apart from that, your article never mentions intentionally wearing local gang colors like a banner, you merely said to not wear gang-related colors at all. So, that means no bluejeans near the Crips, no red t-shirts near the Bloods, and etc. Not even a handkerchief in a back pocket, lest you get shot.

You never once said these hypothetical saints were attempting to appear as, or look the part as, actual gang-affiliated members. But even if that was the case for that church, you don't regulate through extra-Biblical mandates. That gets regulated by the Holy Spirit imparting wisdom and understanding.

So, no, it is not putting the Lord God to the test in anything. God knows how to deliver the righteous. He knows how to save. If He has to give someone a swift kick in the gang-color related pants to wisen them up, He can do so without anyone having to order them to do anything. Admonish, or warn, to be sure. But by no means make it mandatory. You think you are going to save a life, but in the end, all you may end up doing is crushing someone's faith who was ready to believe God for the promises He makes in the Holy Scriptures regarding His supernatural protections. So, again, which is worse?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Yes, I think you misunderstood my post. Maybe not, though.

My point above is that, under horrific duress, persecution, arrest, humiliation, bodily punishment, the threat and actual loss of life, at the hands of the Romans and Aristocratic Judeans, the church not once added an extra-Biblical mandate in order to protect itself, but instead turned to prayer and fasting and rejoiced always.

So, if a church in gangland is the true church, instead of worrying itself over what to do about troubles it might have on its hands, why not convene an Acts 5 prayer meeting and let God shake the place?

Which is more productive in the long run? Which glorifies God and gives the people of God a testimony? Which is going to change the nature of the situation on the ground?

Apart from that, your article never mentions intentionally wearing local gang colors like a banner, you merely said to not wear gang-related colors at all. So, that means no bluejeans near the Crips, no red t-shirts near the Bloods, and etc. Not even a handkerchief in a back pocket, lest you get shot.

You never once said these hypothetical saints were attempting to appear as, or look the part as, actual gang-affiliated members. But even if that was the case for that church, you don't regulate through extra-Biblical mandates. That gets regulated by the Holy Spirit imparting wisdom and understanding.

So, no, it is not putting the Lord God to the test in anything. God knows how to deliver the righteous. He knows how to save. If He has to give someone a swift kick in the gang-color related pants to wisen them up, He can do so without anyone having to order them to do anything. Admonish, or warn, to be sure. But by no means make it mandatory. You think you are going to save a life, but in the end, all you may end up doing is crushing someone's faith who was ready to believe God for the promises He makes in the Holy Scriptures regarding His supernatural protections. So, again, which is worse?

I think it would be the right thing to do for the pastor to say, for safety sake and wisdom sake lets not intentionally wear colors in such and such neighborhood they we know may provoke violence against us.

Heaven or hell of course not, but common sense most definitely. "Follow after peace with all men"...

Your post is similar to those that preach against doctors; "yea the doc may save your life church, but your faith in God will suffer. So in this church if you go to the doctor your faithless and in rebellion to the pulpit. You will thank me in the end, now lets all go eat fried chicken and drink a big gulp of coke."

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I can only respond little by little at the moment. Perhaps more tomorrow.

I may have missed the part about saints not wearing certain clothing not being a heaven or hell issue, but if I did--I can't say from memory one way or the other at this point--it is only because I don't think it matters one way or the other, in the end. Whatever the intention was, and however it was first received and practiced, heaven and hell aside, extra-Biblical mandates always, and I mean ALWAYS become doctrines that eventually get tied to one's salvation, one way or the other. Every fence gets turned into an ancient landmark and you get the idea. Little calves become sacred cows. It might not be in the first or even second generation, but it inevitably happens.

"I may have missed the part..."? But you'd rather just post what you THINK I meant than what I actually said? How hard is it to take the time to read my words?

Enjoy your pontificating...I guess you'd rather make your own guesses into my doctrines. I don't know about calves into cows, but you sure like churning cream into butter.