To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction.
http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/...ntecostal-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.
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.)
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?
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.
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?
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?"
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?
[Cont.]
Linear Mode
