"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[Aquila]

If one teaches that beards are "sin", are they teaching false doctrine?

[Steve Epley]

Honestly I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say beards are a sin?

[Aquila]

Honestly I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say beards are a sin?

You're full of hooey. You know good and well that many men teach that beards are sin. It's becoming more rare, but it's still out there.

But, I'll play your game. Obviously you're claiming to have never heard it. Let's say a man you knew did teach beards are sin. Are they teaching false doctrine?

[Originalist]

You're full of hooey. You know good and well that many men teach that beards are sin. It's becoming more rare, but it's still out there.

But, I'll play your game. Obviously you're claiming to have never heard it. Let's say a man you knew did teach beards are sin. Are they teaching false doctrine?

Invocation of "pastoral authority" in 5,4,3,2......

[Evang.Benincasa]

You're full of hooey. You know good and well that many men teach that beards are sin. It's becoming more rare, but it's still out there.

But, I'll play your game. Obviously you're claiming to have never heard it. Let's say a man you knew did teach beards are sin. Are they teaching false doctrine?

You are full of hooey.

I never heard anyone preach beards are sin.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila what's your game now?

[houston]

I was “taught” that men with facial hair are full of pride, and pride is a sin.

[houston]

You're full of hooey. You know good and well that many men teach that beards are sin. It's becoming more rare, but it's still out there.

But, I'll play your game. Obviously you're claiming to have never heard it. Let's say a man you knew did teach beards are sin. Are they teaching false doctrine?

Watch your tone.

[Michael The Disciple]

Ok lets play your game. If beards are NOT a sin why do you not allow men in your Church to wear them?

[houston]

Honestly I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say beards are a sin?

Only that “they can’t be saved from here.”

[Michael The Disciple]

Only that “they can’t be saved from here.”

But why? If its not a sin? With no scriptural authority would they not be teaching the traditions and doctrines of men?

[Originalist]

But why? If its not a sin? With no scriptural authority would they not be teaching the traditions and doctrines of men?

"Apostolic authority". Didn't you know that Apostolic authority not only grants church leaders the power of absolution, it also empowers them to make their own preferences binding law that is equal to holy writ? if your pastor says wearing a beard is a sin, then by-golly you are sinning if you wear one!! I seen this in the good book.

[Aquila]

You are full of hooey.

I never heard anyone preach beards are sin.

Now, you know it happens. And now, hearts are revealed.

[Michael The Disciple]

You're full of hooey. You know good and well that many men teach that beards are sin. It's becoming more rare, but it's still out there.

But, I'll play your game. Obviously you're claiming to have never heard it. Let's say a man you knew did teach beards are sin. Are they teaching false doctrine?

Why do you say this doctrine is becoming rare? The Pastor of the Church Im visiting told me in our first discussion he was against beards and "Did not favor them".

The Church down the road has the famous policy of just dont touch the platform in a beard. So where are all these Oneness Churches that understand there is nothing wrong with a beard?

I know no one would have presumed to wear a beard at Daytons "Apostolic Lighthouse" in the days you attended. Have they changed their policy?

[Aquila]

I was “taught” that men with facial hair are full of pride, and pride is a sin.

I've heard that too. But pride can also be found among the shaven. Pride is a charter flaw that can take glory in nearly anything.

[Michael The Disciple]

"Apostolic authority". Didn't you know that Apostolic authority not only grants church leaders the power of absolution, it also empowers them to make their own preferences binding law that is equal to holy writ? if your pastor says wearing a beard is a sin, then by-golly you are sinning if you wear one!! I seen this in the good book.

You mean Apostolic Preachers get to be like the Pope?:heeheehee

[Aquila]

Invocation of "pastoral authority" in 5,4,3,2......

I've heard that one too. But can pastoral authority extend beyond the Word?

[Aquila]

Ok lets play your game. If beards are NOT a sin why do you not allow men in your Church to wear them?

Excellent question.

False doctrine?
Traditions of men?
Alienation from the cross, doctrine of devils?

[Michael The Disciple]

You are full of hooey.

I never heard anyone preach beards are sin.

Dom,

What is the policy in YOUR Church concerning beards? Do any members wear them? Are they allowed to teach or preach?

[Aquila]

Why do you say this doctrine is becoming rare? The Pastor of the Church Im visiting told me in our first discussion he was against beards and "Did not favor them".

The Church down the road has the famous policy of just dont touch the platform in a beard. So where are all these Oneness Churches that understand there is nothing wrong with a beard?

I know no one would have presumed to wear a beard at Daytons "Apostolic Lighthouse" in the days you attended. Have they changed their policy?

No. They haven't.

Sadly, most churches around me have moved towards tolerating them in the pews, but platform policies still stand. This makes two standards, does it not?

I'm examining as to if it is false, unbiblical doctrine.

[Michael The Disciple]

No. They haven't.

Sadly, most churches around me have moved towards tolerating them in the pews, but platform policies still stand. This makes two standards, does it not?

I'm examining as to if it is false, unbiblical doctrine.

Not much to examine. Yeshua never taught such a thing nor the Apostles. They probably all were wearing them. Where would one go in scripture to prove such teaching?

Are they condemning Christ and the Apostles as a side effect?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Not much to examine. Yeshua never taught such a thing nor the Apostles. They probably all were wearing them. Where would one go in scripture to prove such teaching?

Are they condemning Christ and the Apostles as a side effect?


Funny, a guy who uses a name not found in the New Testament is complaining about another guy having lack of scriptural evidence for a clean shave.

Yeshua Christ?

[jediwill83]

You are full of hooey.

I never heard anyone preach beards are sin.

I have.... I've heard them ascribe in vague terms that ita a "spirit" associated with facial hair when they can't use scripture to establish the doctrine.

I also have heard Urshan preach against it because,"The homosexual wears the beard."

[Jenny]

Aside from the Nazarite vow, I can't recall any fuss made one way or the other in the Scriptures. Hasidic Jews are convinced they should wear the earlocks and beards and I assume this springs from some interpretation of the Old Testament, also the Amish (but w/o the earlocks). I personally would never think a man more or less holy if he had a beard.

[Monterrey]

Beards are definintely a sin...............































On a woman!!!!!!!


Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, couldn't resist!!!

[Esaias]

Honestly I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say beards are a sin?

Neither have I.

[Aquila]

Beards are definintely a sin...............































On a woman!!!!!!!


Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, couldn't resist!!!

:lol

[Aquila]

The question wasn't if anyone has heard beards preached as a sin, the question is...If one teaches that they are sin, is it false doctrine?

[Aquila]

In 2007, EB stated:

I know what you need Sister Mich, you need to find the most conservative Apostolic Holiness Church you can find (preferably one that doesn't believe in beards) and attend there for at least three years. You won't regret it Sister!

You do it and you will LOVE IT!!:kittyhug


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Why would you prefer that one send a church that doesn't believe in beards if you never heard them preached as being a sin, or I if you have no issue with them?

Or, has your position on beards evolved?

[Esaias]

The liberal mind, in politics, has no nuance. Thus, liberals accuse others of being stubborn, old fashioned, narrow minded, etc. It's a form of psychological projection. Apparently, it's true in religion as well. Some folks cannot conceive there is a difference between "against beards" on the one hand, and "beards are SIN" on the other hand.

I think liberalism really is a mental disorder.

[Esaias]

Now, you know it happens. And now, hearts are revealed.

Hearts are revealed? What are you, the Psychic Berniecostal Prophet of Gloom sent to reveal everyone's Not-As-Holy-As-Thine heart?

Get out of here.:smack

[1ofthechosen]

The liberal mind, in politics, has no nuance. Thus, liberals accuse others of being stubborn, old fashioned, narrow minded, etc. It's a form of psychological projection. Apparently, it's true in religion as well. Some folks cannot conceive there is a difference between "against beards" on the one hand, and "beards are SIN" on the other hand.

I think liberalism really is a mental disorder.

That is the truth, and I can see it; that's hilarious (I truly Lol'ed). Anything anybody takes a stand on people blow out of proportion, but will drive down the road with signs and laws all day, and never complain. When I was in the world I would adhere to a dress code to go to a club, or even to court and "such did some of you too." But when it comes to the house of God people get to over reacting. Blowing things out of proportion.

[Esaias]

That is the truth, and I can see it; that's hilarious (I truly Lol'ed). Anything anybody takes a stand on people blow out of proportion, but will drive down the road with signs and laws all day, and never complain. When I was in the world I would adhere to a dress code to go to a club, or even to court and "such did some of you too." But when it comes to the house of God people get to over reacting. Blowing things out of proportion.

Some of these same people would say "although tobacco isn't necessarily a SIN, I don't want to see anyone on the platform with a lit ceegar or a lip full o dip" and not bat an eye.

Justifications forthcoming in 3, 2, 1...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hearts are revealed? What are you, the Psychic Berniecostal Prophet of Gloom sent to reveal everyone's Not-As-Holy-As-Thine heart?

Get out of here.:smack

:thumbsup :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

I have.... I've heard them ascribe in vague terms that ita a "spirit" associated with facial hair when they can't use scripture to establish the doctrine.

I also have heard Urshan preach against it because,"The homosexual wears the beard."

Bro,I have never heard someone preach or teach that it is a sin. Because I have a beard every morning. I shave it off, and guess what? It grows by the afternoon. If I let it grow I would make ZZ Tops cry in his wild turkey bite. Seriously, my hair grows so fast on my chin that I can cut it off and send it to Michael the Disciple to cover his head, and to cover up those cat whiskers he calls a beard. :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

In 2007, EB stated:



Why would you prefer that one send a church that doesn't believe in beards if you never heard them preached as being a sin, or I if you have no issue with them?

Or, has your position on beards evolved?

Did Mich have a beard? Or did her live in boyfriend have a beard or both?

No, nothing has changed, I still keep my self clean shaved, but everyone else who sports a mustache, or a beard is up to them. The scripture doesn't teach that it is mandatory to wear a beard, or that there is a prohibition against beards. I know guys who preach if you don't wear a beard it is effeminate. So, it is a standard that they are teaching.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The liberal mind, in politics, has no nuance. Thus, liberals accuse others of being stubborn, old fashioned, narrow minded, etc. It's a form of psychological projection. Apparently, it's true in religion as well. Some folks cannot conceive there is a difference between "against beards" on the one hand, and "beards are SIN" on the other hand.

I think liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Hence the reason the liberal will be the prime tool in the fall of society as we know it. Christianity will be left to a small remnant while the greater portion will be the State Church were doctrine will be what is good for the state.

[1ofthechosen]

I have.... I've heard them ascribe in vague terms that ita a "spirit" associated with facial hair when they can't use scripture to establish the doctrine.

I also have heard Urshan preach against it because,"The homosexual wears the beard."

I've never heard anyone say it's a sin. Although I did hear brother N.A. Urshan say the thing in a message about homosexuals wearing beards cut a certain way to identify them as homosexuals, like wearing a ear ring in a certain ear. He didn't say it was a sin; but he said just like everyone else I've ever heard say about it, that we shouldn't look like the world.
I can see that because people in the world see on the outside before they notice what you have inwardly. The outwardly will make them analyze you and allow them to see you are different inwardly. That's the only way I've ever heard it preached. Though I have heard when you start to rebel against your pastor the first thing someone will do will start with their hair or facial hair most times. So I can say beware, 1 Samuel 15:23 is something we should all stay aware of!! 2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" And nobody became a reprobate all in one night, it starts one decision and compromise at a time. I encourage you to take a stand on that serpents head and don't let off.

Here comes the attack, but as Pilate said in John 19:22 "What I have written I have written."

[consapente89]

It probably won't be the beard that takes you to hell, so I wouldn't get to worked up about that at this point.

[FlamingZword]

Here comes the attack, but as Pilate said in John 19:22 "What I have written I have written."

Pilate was the bad man. :laffatu

[Evang.Benincasa]

It probably won't be the beard that takes you to hell, so I wouldn't get to worked up about that at this point.

:highfive

[Aquila]

The liberal mind, in politics, has no nuance. Thus, liberals accuse others of being stubborn, old fashioned, narrow minded, etc. It's a form of psychological projection. Apparently, it's true in religion as well. Some folks cannot conceive there is a difference between "against beards" on the one hand, and "beards are SIN" on the other hand.

I think liberalism really is a mental disorder.

I know men who teach that beards are indeed sin. The question is, Is this false doctrine? You keep refusing to answer.

But, you bring up a good point.

On what biblical grounds does one have to be "against beards"?

[Aquila]

Did Mich have a beard? Or did her live in boyfriend have a beard or both?

No, nothing has changed, I still keep my self clean shaved, but everyone else who sports a mustache, or a beard is up to them. The scripture doesn't teach that it is mandatory to wear a beard, or that there is a prohibition against beards. I know guys who preach if you don't wear a beard it is effeminate. So, it is a standard that they are teaching.

Okay. I agree with your position. I feel the same way.

But the question was, If someone teaches that it is "sin", is such a teaching "false doctrine"?

[Aquila]

I've never heard anyone say it's a sin. Although I did hear brother N.A. Urshan say the thing in a message about homosexuals wearing beards cut a certain way to identify them as homosexuals, like wearing a ear ring in a certain ear. He didn't say it was a sin; but he said just like everyone else I've ever heard say about it, that we shouldn't look like the world.
I can see that because people in the world see on the outside before they notice what you have inwardly. The outwardly will make them analyze you and allow them to see you are different inwardly. That's the only way I've ever heard it preached. Though I have heard when you start to rebel against your pastor the first thing someone will do will start with their hair or facial hair most times. So I can say beware, 1 Samuel 15:23 is something we should all stay aware of!! 2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" And nobody became a reprobate all in one night, it starts one decision and compromise at a time. I encourage you to take a stand on that serpents head and don't let off.

Here comes the attack, but as Pilate said in John 19:22 "What I have written I have written."

Good points.

But if someone teaches that beards are "sin", is it a false teaching, a false doctrine?

[Tithesmeister]

Good points.

But if someone teaches that beards are "sin", is it a false teaching, a false doctrine?

Yes

[houston]

What is the point of this thread? Teaching that a beard is a sin is not on par with your nonsense that “acts 2.38 is required but not for Billy Graham.”

[houston]

This thread is a diversion

[1ofthechosen]

Good points.

But if someone teaches that beards are "sin", is it a false teaching, a false doctrine?

I would say it is false doctrine of they say quote unquote beards are a sin. Because there is not one scripture to back that up. Yes Aquila they have gone too far. Not per me or anyone else, only the Bible. Now if it's a standard that is something different. But a sin no, but if your pastor preaches against it not as sin but as a standard you should do it. Because there is liberty in submitting to God's government even when you don't understand. Now I know people on here like to take everything to the farthest extent. But nothing about that teaching is immoral, so just submit. You can always grow a beard and go to another church at a later time. But don't judge things before the time. If you will get on board with the man of God, you will find a liberty. In that I promise.. Now here comes an attack, but "What I have written I have written."

[houston]

That’s just ridiculous

[Michael The Disciple]

This is so ludicrous. People acting like they never heard beards preached against. Almost ALL the Apostolics I have had any dealings with preached against them. And yes the platform standard is teaching against them because to the leadership one is not holy enough to even walk on their platform if he has a beard.

So because its a standard all should blindly obey? Do Apostolic Pastors get to make up their own rules?

[Tithesmeister]

This is so ludicrous. People acting like they never heard beards preached against. Almost ALL the Apostolics I have had any dealings with preached against them. And yes the platform standard is teaching against them because to the leadership one is not holy enough to even walk on their platform if he has a beard.

So because its a standard all should blindly obey? Do Apostolic Pastors get to make up their own rules?

I agree.

[1ofthechosen]

This is so ludicrous. People acting like they never heard beards preached against. Almost ALL the Apostolics I have had any dealings with preached against them. And yes the platform standard is teaching against them because to the leadership one is not holy enough to even walk on their platform if he has a beard.

So because its a standard all should blindly obey? Do Apostolic Pastors get to make up their own rules?

No one said anything about no one heard it preached against, but what was said was quote unquote it's a sin to have a beard. I have never heard that.
Standards have been what they are forever in my church, they are all 3rd and 4th generation. How can I want them to change? But no one has ever told me it was a sin.

[Michael The Disciple]

How about the multitude of men, having seen the light on Oneness have drawn back because of the traditional, man made doctrine they see among us that somehow a beard is unholy? They think they wont have to give an account for this?

First they tell people if they dont attend an Apostolic Church they will burn in hell forever. Then when the guy comes and he is preached at, or against for having a beard, he sees that Apostolics are a lot like Trins. They Preach what seems right in their own eyes. So they write off Oneness as just another cult.

[Esaias]

This is so ludicrous. People acting like they never heard beards preached against.

What's ludicrous is people need a Phonics review. Nobody said beards aren't preached against. What some of us are saying is we've never heard beards called SIN.

[1ofthechosen]

What's ludicrous is people need a Phonics review. Nobody said beards aren't preached against. What some of us are saying is we've never heard beards called SIN.

Amen. And for everyone who doesn't like it, find you a liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar, and no altars and all that and go there. But don't complain about standards. If it's a deal breaker find you some standards you can adhere to!! Just beware that's a dangerous path!! Ok enough of this!! Moving on!!

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen View Post
I've never heard anyone say it's a sin. Although I did hear brother N.A. Urshan say the thing in a message about homosexuals wearing beards cut a certain way to identify them as homosexuals, like wearing a ear ring in a certain ear. He didn't say it was a sin; but he said just like everyone else I've ever heard say about it, that we shouldn't look like the world.

Ok its about looking like the world? Does YAH say wearing a beard is looking like the world?

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of THY BEARD.

So even tho GOD commanded the Jews not to mar the corners of their BEARDS it was worldly? So now the standard Popes know more about what looks worldly than God does!

[Michael The Disciple]

What's ludicrous is people need a Phonics review. Nobody said beards aren't preached against. What some of us are saying is we've never heard beards called SIN.

But my question is WHY PREACH AGAINST BEARDS? So its ok to run people out of Church or never let them in in the first place over something everyone knows IS NOT A SIN?

If we all know its not a sin why preach against it?

[Tithesmeister]

Ok its about looking like the world? Does YAH say wearing a beard is looking like the world?

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of THY BEARD.

So even tho GOD commanded the Jews not to mar the corners of their BEARDS it was worldly? So now the standard Popes know more about what looks worldly than God does!

Preach!!

I think the truth of the matter is, that there are those among us who think they have a better idea . . .


Than God???

[Tithesmeister]

But my question is WHY PREACH AGAINST BEARDS? So its ok to run people out of Church or never let them in in the first place over something everyone knows IS NOT A SIN?

If we all know its not a sin why preach against it?

Because we have preached sin into extinction?

So we must find something else to preach?

[Michael The Disciple]

Dom,

You must have missed my question. I asked what is your Church policy on beards? Are they preached against? If so why? Does ANYONE there have a beard?

[1ofthechosen]

Ok its about looking like the world? Does YAH say wearing a beard is looking like the world?

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of THY BEARD.

So even tho GOD commanded the Jews not to mar the corners of their BEARDS it was worldly? So now the standard Popes know more about what looks worldly than God does!

Ok so we are following Mosaic law now? In our day it is looking like the world. I will remind you if your going to use that law, you have to adhere to the rest too. Oh and "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads", make sure you follow that too, not just the part you agree with!!

[Aquila]

I would say it is false doctrine of they say quote unquote beards are a sin. Because there is not one scripture to back that up. Yes Aquila they have gone too far. Not per me or anyone else, only the Bible. Now if it's a standard that is something different. But a sin no, but if your pastor preaches against it not as sin but as a standard you should do it. Because there is liberty in submitting to God's government even when you don't understand. Now I know people on here like to take everything to the farthest extent. But nothing about that teaching is immoral, so just submit. You can always grow a beard and go to another church at a later time. But don't judge things before the time. If you will get on board with the man of God, you will find a liberty. In that I promise.. Now here comes an attack, but "What I have written I have written."

I believe that a "standard" should have biblical merit, a lawful standard is based on Scripture, not a man's, nor a denomination's arbitrary opinion or private interpretation. Else the church in question will be conformed into the pastor's, or denomination's, image...and not Christ's, in accordance to the Scriptures.

Also, such a position opens the door to innumerable arbitrary standards.

[1ofthechosen]

I believe that a "standard" should have biblical merit, a lawful standard is based on Scripture, not a man's, nor a denomination's arbitrary opinion or private interpretation. Else the church in question will be conformed into the pastor's, or denomination's, image...and not Christ's, in accordance to the Scriptures.

Also, such a position opens the door to innumerable arbitrary standards.

Ok name one more thing that is preached that you don't agree with. Because I don't see things being added. What else do they Preach that is not Scriptural? Because facial hair means nothing really.

[Michael The Disciple]

1 ofthechosen

Ok so we are following Mosaic law now?

Duet 22:5

5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Are we?

Because facial hair means nothing really.

If so why do they preach against it?

[1ofthechosen]

Duet 22:5

5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Are we?



If so why do they preach against it?

DEUTERONOMY 22:5 Says "it's a abomination to the Lord." That is a moral law God does not change. He hated it then, He hates it now. That wasn't said in Leviticus 19:27, it can't be compared.

[Michael The Disciple]

1ofthechosen

In our day it is looking like the world.

Who gave that discernment? Lets look into something that in our day is adored by the world.
Something that almost all Preachers wear every time they preach.

Suits are worldly!


Are Politicians worldly? Congressman, Senators, Governors?
Are CIA and FBI worldly?
Are Mafia worldly?
Are the Hollywood actors worldly?

What do these have in common with Apostolic Preachers and many Church members?

They all wear suits!

But yet in our day.....they are not worldly?

[Michael The Disciple]

DEUTERONOMY 22:5 Says "it's a abomination to the Lord." That is a moral law God does not change. He hated it then, He hates it now. That wasn't said in Leviticus 19:27, it can't be compared.

Oh so we ARE going to preach Moses. I see.:heeheehee

OK!

More abominations.

Leviticus 11:10-11

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Is this abomination in effect? Do you teach it?

[Aquila]

I'm examining Apostolic churches in my area. So far, all teach that beards are either a "sin", or they admit that it isn't a "sin", but they preach against them for being "worldly". And on what basis are they determined to be worldly? But isn't worldliness sin?

[1ofthechosen]

Who gave that discernment? Lets look into something that in our day is adored by the world.
Something that almost all Preachers wear every time they preach.

Suits are worldly!


Are Politicians worldly? Congressman, Senators, Governors?
Are CIA and FBI worldly?
Are Mafia worldly?
Are the Hollywood actors worldly?

What do these have in common with Apostolic Preachers and many Church members?

They all wear suits!

But yet in our day.....they are not worldly?

We've been called to dress moderately. But if we take away suits what are the men of God supposed to wear? Let's just follow this line of thoughts.

[Aquila]

DEUTERONOMY 22:5 Says "it's a abomination to the Lord." That is a moral law God does not change. He hated it then, He hates it now. That wasn't said in Leviticus 19:27, it can't be compared.

Pork and shellfish are listed as abominations too. Do you believe that the dietary code still stands?

[1ofthechosen]

Oh so we ARE going to preach Moses. I see.:heeheehee



That's moral law it has nothing to do with preaching Moses. God explicitly says He hates it, that never passes away. Shouldn't we want to please God? But the law of Moses is something different.

[1ofthechosen]

Pork and shellfish are listed as abominations too. Do you believe that the dietary code still stands?

Scripture says "it should be abomination to you". Deuteronomy 22:5 says "for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." A big difference.

[Aquila]

We've been called to dress moderately. But if we take away suits what are the men of God supposed to wear? Let's just follow this line of thoughts.

I know entire churches that are rather informal, non-flashy, plain. But they aren't Apostolic. The Apostolics around me dress to the nines. All polished and starched, every hair in place. They dont wear jewelry, but they are quite flashy. Dressed perfectly for the local Sunday show.

I've attended house churches for several years. I don't even own a suit anymore. Lol

[Esaias]

But my question is WHY PREACH AGAINST BEARDS? So its ok to run people out of Church or never let them in in the first place over something everyone knows IS NOT A SIN?

If we all know its not a sin why preach against it?

Believe me, I'm not defending the anti-beard position. If I was feeling preachy I could blast this thread with a three part book, chapter, and verse Bible study showing its more likely a sin to be clean shaven than fully bearded.

I just get irritated when people ignore what is actually being said, and go off knocking down straw men, that's all. I think too many here get all end of the worldish about things, instead of simply discussing doctrine.

[houston]

Believe me, I'm not defending the anti-beard position. If I was feeling preachy I could blast this thread with a three part book, chapter, and verse Bible study showing its more likely a sin to be clean shaven than fully bearded.

I just get irritated when people ignore what is actually being said, and go off knocking down straw men, that's all. I think too many here get all end of the worldish about things, instead of simply discussing doctrine.

I would be interested in reading that.

[Amanah]

Amen. And for everyone who doesn't like it, find you a liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar, and no altars and all that and go there. But don't complain about standards. If it's a deal breaker find you some standards you can adhere to!! Just beware that's a dangerous path!! Ok enough of this!! Moving on!!


liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar and no altars? what planet are you from?

[houston]

I think what I said(I am 60 so memory can be foggy) you might go to heaven with a beard but you are not going to go to heaven with a beard from here. Because we are not having beards here. If I remember correctly(again I am 60) someone called me a nitwit and I responded by saying I might be a nitwit but I am the nitwit God put in charge here.:thumbsup
But that is so close we are not fussing about it AND I feel the same now as I did then.:thumbsup
Not sure how this is justifiable.

[houston]

Amen. And for everyone who doesn't like it, find you a liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar, and no altars and all that and go there. But don't complain about standards. If it's a deal breaker find you some standards you can adhere to!! Just beware that's a dangerous path!! Ok enough of this!! Moving on!!

This is quite ignorant.

[Amanah]

does this look like a high class jazz bar? pics from yesterday

[consapente89]

liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar and no altars? what planet are you from?

I don't think he was referring to all UPC churches as liberal with mood lights and such. I certainly have seen UPC churches that fit the bill.

[consapente89]

does this look like a high class jazz bar? pics from yesterday

Is that Jeff Pfohl?

[Aquila]

I find it funny that the posts are all over the map.

I'm only wanting to know if teaching that beards are a "sin" is a false teaching.

[Michael The Disciple]

I find it funny that the posts are all over the map.

I'm only wanting to know if teaching that beards are a "sin" is a false teaching.

The simple answer is yes it is a sin. It has probably caused multitudes of people to stumble over baptism in Jesus name and Oneness doctrine. Then when they have run the seeker out of the Church they say he didnt "love the truth".

Its pathetic.

[Michael The Disciple]

We've been called to dress moderately. But if we take away suits what are the men of God supposed to wear? Let's just follow this line of thoughts.

Lets do. So you think suits are moderate? Ok then the President and the Congress are moderate. The CIA killers and spies are moderate. The Wall Street crowd is moderate.

And I'm sure the actors around Hollywood will be pleased to know they are MODERATE while they are attending their parties and their Oscar Academy awards!

But of course, they are not worldly.

What should the man of God wear? Something modest. Something not costly. Like all of us should wear.

COULD IT BE PRIDE........that makes people want to look like Mafia or Hollywood actors waiting on their Oscars?

Now you know what people who wear beards (which are created by God) have to put up with.

[Tithesmeister]

I gave your answer waaaay back on post #45.

Yes

Maybe I didn’t pontificate sufficiently.

[Amanah]

Is that Jeff Pfohl?

no, our Pastor is Wes Lindsey.

[Michael The Disciple]

Believe me, I'm not defending the anti-beard position. If I was feeling preachy I could blast this thread with a three part book, chapter, and verse Bible study showing its more likely a sin to be clean shaven than fully bearded.

I just get irritated when people ignore what is actually being said, and go off knocking down straw men, that's all. I think too many here get all end of the worldish about things, instead of simply discussing doctrine.

Here is the issue. The vast majority of Apostolic Churches preach against beards. They may say "we dont say its a sin". So then why preach against it? Are we not then like the Trins or some other group that makes up doctrine as they go along?

I have been in an Apostolic Church where a man with a beard was ridiculed until he got up and ran out of the building and then the Preacher made a remark like, "We've stirred up the devil tonight"!

If you have not seen those kind of antics maybe you cant relate to what this all means.

To MANY APOSTOLICS....this IS doctrine.

[Amanah]

Teaching beards are a sin would is false doctrine.

Asking men to shave and wear a jacket when on the platform because it is what society considers respectable in the light of tradition, while being old fashioned, is understandable.

Leaving church over it is short sighted.

[Michael The Disciple]

Teaching beards are a sin would is false doctrine.

Asking men to shave and wear a jacket when on the platform because it is what society considers respectable in the light of tradition, while being old fashioned, is understandable.

Leaving church over it is short sighted.

So the Hollywood actor, the Mafia types, and the Wall St. types would fit right in to our respectable Churches in their fine suits BUT a lover of Jesus with a beard would be shunned.

Probably people with beards dont leave Church until they are made to feel they are "unrespectable" if not downright sinners.

[Aquila]

Teaching beards are a sin would is false doctrine.

Asking men to shave and wear a jacket when on the platform because it is what society considers respectable in the light of tradition, while being old fashioned, is understandable.

I'm all for any business or organization establishing a code of conduct for those who work for it and represent it. And yes, that can include appearance and dress code.

Now, when it comes to "churches", one should take note of such standards and not as to whether they are "biblical" or not.

Leaving church over it is short sighted.

Perhaps. But it begs the question - What other errors and traditions of men are they preaching as doctrine?

If one is looking for a church, certainly they should consider these things.

[Michael The Disciple]

Here is a good question.

How did men get beards in the first place? Why do men have beards?

[Aquila]

So the Hollywood actor, the Mafia types, and the Wall St. types would fit right in to our respectable Churches in their fine suits BUT a lover of Jesus with a beard would be shunned.

Probably people with beards dont leave Church until they are made to feel they are "unrespectable" if not downright sinners.

Michael, were you ever faced with unjustified and unbiblical condemnation over your beard?

[Aquila]

Here is a good question.

How did men get beards in the first place? Why do men have beards?

Because God created two types of people in this world. Those with beards... and women. :lol

[Amanah]

So the Hollywood actor, the Mafia types, and the Wall St. types would fit right in to our respectable Churches in their fine suits BUT a lover of Jesus with a beard would be shunned.

Probably people with beards dont leave Church until they are made to feel they are "unrespectable" if not downright sinners.

hyperbole

men come to FPC with beards and feel accepted and loved.

but the platform standards are to be shaven.

[Amanah]

at FPC Palm Bay right now, men have beards for the Messiah Drama and are wearing them on the platform.

They grew them out for the play.

[Amanah]

I'm all for any business or organization establishing a code of conduct for those who work for it and represent it. And yes, that can include appearance and dress code.

Now, when it comes to "churches", one should take note of such standards and not as to whether they are "biblical" or not.



Perhaps. But it begs the question - What other errors and traditions of men are they preaching as doctrine?

If one is looking for a church, certainly they should consider these things.


at least the gospel is preached.

[Aquila]

at least the gospel is preached.

Maybe.

If they can be mistaken about whiskers, how can one trust them to not be mistaken on weightier matters?

[Amanah]

Maybe.

If they can be mistaken about whiskers, how can one trust them to not be mistaken on weightier matters?

I'd worry more about attending charismatic house churches, or Trinitarian churches, or sitting at home in isolation and becoming whacked out.

[Aquila]

I'd worry more about charismatic house churches, or Trinitarian churches, or sitting at home in isolation and becoming whacked out.

The more I look at it, the more narrow the way becomes. There are those who are leading people into the ditch on the left, and those leading people into the ditch on the right. Every one is saying that their way is "the Bible way'. And all are locked in, unable to really move into an honest study and seeking out of the Bible due to being a part of an institution that perpetuates itself, protects positions, and protects salaries.

[Amanah]

The more I look at it, the more narrow the way becomes. There are those who are leading people into the ditch on the left, and those leading people into the ditch on the right. Every one is saying that their way is "the Bible way'. And all are locked in, unable to really move into an honest study and seeking out of the Bible due to being a part of an institution that perpetuates itself, protects positions, and protects salaries.

and you feel you are the guide to show us the way?

[houston]

at FPC Palm Bay right now, men have beards for the Messiah Drama and are wearing them on the platform.

They grew them out for the play.

Convenient

[houston]

I'd worry more about attending charismatic house churches, or Trinitarian churches, or sitting at home in isolation and becoming whacked out.

Yep

[Aquila]

and you feel you are the guide to show us the way?

Nope.

I do believe we should look to Scripture together. If it says nothing about beards being sin, those who teach such should be rebuked or rejected.

[Amanah]

Nope.

I do believe we should look to Scripture together. If it says nothing about beards being sin, those who teach such should be rebuked or rejected.

we will have to defer to the Elders.

[Godsdrummer]

This is so wrong people saying that they have never heard it preached against. When I was young our church was the only church that did not preach against facial hair in our state. But when I got my mistrial license I was told by my pastor that I would have to shave my mustache off. Not much has changed in the state, except some churches have gone independent.

I myself got out of UPCI years ago because of these false doctrines. You can go back and forth over this and other so called doctrines yet they are just man made doctrines that our just some mans interpretation of scripture, much like the Pharisee of Christ day.

[Godsdrummer]

we will have to defer to the Elders.

That is so wrong, we go against Christ own teaching when we do this.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them and said, You know that the rulers of the nations exercise dominion over them, and they who are great exercise authority over them.
Mat 20:26 However, it shall not be so among you. But whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant.
Mat 20:27 And whoever desires to be chief among you, let him be your servant;
Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

[consapente89]

This thread is pointless & is proving itself so. From naked breakfasts with your girlfriend, liberal sodomite politics, posting "readings" on psychic board, sprinkling or pouring "in Jesus name" and calling it baptism, Acts 2:38 a requirement unless God changes his mind, a bird landing on socialist Bernie Sanders as a sign of God's favor, etc...

I just honestly don't get how you can expect ANYONE to take you seriously.

[votivesoul]

There seems to me to be a question underneath the question. Is it a sin to be a man? To be masculine?

We might at first scoff at the sheer stupidity of the thought that such questions raise. But hold a moment and ask yourself: what is the currently most attacked and maligned and marginalized portion of society here in the USA?

It's the masculine, uncompromising alpha male. The "man" that is being held up in today's world as the pinnacle of masculinity is small, even petite, thin, no shoulders, weak chin, high voice, and could pass as a girl if called upon. The world used to want heroes, now it wants comforters and makers of safe spaces. Modern feminism seeks to emasculate men wholesale.

Men are biologically and genetically predisposed to grow facial hair. It comes as a result of the production of testosterone from within you know where, in particular, the metabolite of testosterone called DHT or dihydrotestosterone. Some men produce more than others, some men LOTS more than others, but all men produce some amount. To deny one's growth of facial hair can be a choice freely made, for the purpose of appearance or convenience, if one chooses.

But to slice and dice the God-given, naturally growing hair of the face because someone claims to have the right to control your appearance? That's something else entirely. Now, one enters the military, they are agreeing to that control. One takes a job with company that has a strict facial hair policy, again, they are agreeing to that control. But note! It's still a form of control.

And in the church, where we all see and recognize the activity of Jezebel, or of worldliness, metrosexuality, feminism, and etc. having gained a stronghold, maybe not locally at your particular place of meeting, but generally speaking, we can all speak to it existing and being a spiritual force which we must withstand.

And one of, if not the only way to do so, to withstand, is to un-emasculate and reinvigorate the men of the Body. And a way to do that is to simply let the testosterone of their genetic make-up have its way. Will it result in facial hair? Yes, it will.

But it will also affect bone density, deepening of voice, increase in the size of the adam's apple, shoulder width, give a man a healthy libido (to be used in the confines of the undefiled marriage bed), greater physical strength, and etc.

Effectively, it will naturally cause men to become men again. And the only thing I can think of that would be against such a thing is a spirit of misandry, call it Jezebel if you wish, but it's all the same. The head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, even as the head of every woman is the man. The man, that is, the married husband under Christ who is under God, has no authority over his own body, but rather, that power is given to the woman, the wife, and vice versa. No one else can claim such an authority. No one. And to emasculate a man and force him to be clean-shaven as an act of submission is to treat that man like a dog and in the process, hurt his marriage.

Over the years I've been in so many meetings and counseling sessions and whatever, where women whine and moan and berate their husbands for not this, not that, not whatever, complaining he's not spiritual enough, he doesn't pray enough, blah, blah, blah, blah. Women want their men to lead, but then find their men are programmed not to because a "head" other than Christ is making decisions for him that God alone has given that man to make.

Think about it for a moment. I was in a leadership meeting one time and the pastor, in front of their men, was ordering the women on what they can and cannot wear, what length their sleeves had to be, how long their skirts had to be, what they could mow the lawn in or do choirs in and what they could not.

And the worst part of such asinine bunk is people just absorbed it in like it was okay for one man who was not the head of any of those other women, to take control and have authority over their body, and dictate their appearance.

And we wonder why the church is becoming effeminate, why Jezebel is running loose, why men aren't leading in the homes and the church and everywhere else?! It's because our church paradigm has stomped on their you know whats and told them to lie down and take it (like a man???).

If people in the church at large are offended by men with beards, I submit that offense is rooted in anti-christ effeminate feminism and misandry. Why else is facial hair even as issue? Why else is facial hair one of the key litmus tests of one's submission to authority?

Because if a man who is not your head can make you shave your face or you cannot participate, minister, or even belong, he can control you (and your wife, implied) any way he wants.

So what is it then, brethren? For many, to have a beard is what? A SIGN OF REBELLION? To God? Nope! To Jesus? Nope! To the Apostles? Nope! To any part of the Bible whatsoever? Nope! The only way a beard gives off an alleged sign of rebellion is when the person offended by it realizes he cannot control that man as his head. That's it. End of story.

Brothers, shave if you want to. IF YOU WANT TO. That's between your head Jesus and your wife, if you're married. But likewise, brothers. Grow your beard IF YOU WANT TO. And if someone snaps on you and puts you down or puts you out, well, if you've read this, now you know the reason why. Strings attached Christianity means someone is pulling strings, and that's no different than a marionettist working his puppets, making them dance.

I've heard and read and listened to all the reasons why a pastor or a group of elders has the right to establish "standards" as they see fit, but the fact of the matter is, the only right anyone has is to point to the Holy Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit dictate the matter. Anything beyond the teachings of the Word is EXTRA-BIBLICAL. And doing or teaching anything extra-Biblical is heretical and even damning, as the case may be. If you want to invite that upon yourself, you be my guest. I will try to stand in the way for as long as I can or as long as the Lord allows, but anyone who is readily and easily jeopardizing their soul is already very hard to help, indeed.

Real men, men of God used to tremble at God's Word, and dare not add a single jot or tittle to it, lest they be plagued by God, or dare reduce it one iota, lest their names be stricken from the Book of Life.

Effeminate, weak, post-modern "men" of their own bellies do as they please, and tremble at nothing but their own narcissism.

People say having a beard is a sign of pride, ego, or arrogance and that's sin. No, that's not it at all. It's that not having one is (or can be), according to the Holy Scriptures, a sign of shame, dishonor, contempt, and humiliation, something King David understood, and something, I think, the Son of David understood, too, when the Romans ripped His beard out of His face when they reproached, degraded, humiliated, and tortured Him. His visage was marred worse than any man's, right? Such that he couldn't be recognized as a man.

So, let's be real about what's happening here. Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all. Their manhood is being eroded right from underneath them, and their headship is being usurped, as is the authority their wives, if married, have over their bodies. This is spiritual and it takes discernment to see it.

Maybe once upon a time in the 60's the counter-culture wore beards to make a statement and take a stand, and so, preachers naturally gravitated toward being clean-shaven to stand apart from that attitude. But in today's world, the counter-cultural revolution happening now is the skinny jeans-wearing, limp-wristed, snow-flaked millennials who high-five each other for successfully adulting a couple times a week, whose ability to reproduce is in question, who can't even grow peach fuzz because momma's fed them soy all their lives, and being androgynous is all the rave.

So, how about our preachers stand apart from that? What a stand for manhood might that be! Or did Jesus make a mistake calling hard, tough as nails, calloused, bearded, rough around the edges, worked hard, lived hard, men from Galilee for His apostles? Should He have called women?

[Amanah]

Brother Aaron, are you saying that growing a beard will cause the following effect:

"But it will also affect bone density, deepening of voice, increase in the size of the adam's apple, shoulder width, give a man a healthy libido (to be used in the confines of the undefiled marriage bed), greater physical strength, and etc."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Tithesmeister]

There seems to me to be a question underneath the question. Is it a sin to be a man? To be masculine?

We might at first scoff at the sheer stupidity of the thought that such questions raise. But hold a moment and ask yourself: what is the currently most attacked and maligned and marginalized portion of society here in the USA?

It's the masculine, uncompromising alpha male. The "man" that is being held up in today's world as the pinnacle of masculinity is small, even petite, thin, no shoulders, weak chin, high voice, and could pass as a girl if called upon. The world used to want heroes, now it wants comforters and makers of safe spaces. Modern feminism seeks to emasculate men wholesale.

Men are biologically and genetically predisposed to grow facial hair. It comes as a result of the production of testosterone from within you know where, in particular, the metabolite of testosterone called DHT or dihydrotestosterone. Some men produce more than others, some men LOTS more than others, but all men produce some amount. To deny one's growth of facial hair can be a choice freely made, for the purpose of appearance or convenience, if one chooses.

But to slice and dice the God-given, naturally growing hair of the face because someone claims to have the right to control your appearance? That's something else entirely. Now, one enters the military, they are agreeing to that control. One takes a job with company that has a strict facial hair policy, again, they are agreeing to that control. But note! It's still a form of control.

And in the church, where we all see and recognize the activity of Jezebel, or of worldliness, metrosexuality, feminism, and etc. having gained a stronghold, maybe not locally at your particular place of meeting, but generally speaking, we can all speak to it existing and being a spiritual force which we must withstand.

And one of, if not the only way to do so, to withstand, is to un-emasculate and reinvigorate the men of the Body. And a way to do that is to simply let the testosterone of their genetic make-up have its way. Will it result in facial hair? Yes, it will.

But it will also affect bone density, deepening of voice, increase in the size of the adam's apple, shoulder width, give a man a healthy libido (to be used in the confines of the undefiled marriage bed), greater physical strength, and etc.

Effectively, it will naturally cause men to become men again. And the only thing I can think of that would be against such a thing is a spirit of misandry, call it Jezebel if you wish, but it's all the same. The head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, even as the head of every woman is the man. The man, that is, the married husband under Christ who is under God, has no authority over his own body, but rather, that power is given to the woman, the wife, and vice versa. No one else can claim such an authority. No one. And to emasculate a man and force him to be clean-shaven as an act of submission is to treat that man like a dog and in the process, hurt his marriage.

Over the years I've been in so many meetings and counseling sessions and whatever, where women whine and moan and berate their husbands for not this, not that, not whatever, complaining he's not spiritual enough, he doesn't pray enough, blah, blah, blah, blah. Women want their men to lead, but then find their men are programmed not to because a "head" other than Christ is making decisions for him that God alone has given that man to make.

Think about it for a moment. I was in a leadership meeting one time and the pastor, in front of their men, was ordering the women on what they can and cannot wear, what length their sleeves had to be, how long their skirts had to be, what they could mow the lawn in or do choirs in and what they could not.

And the worst part of such asinine bunk is people just absorbed it in like it was okay for one man who was not the head of any of those other women, to take control and have authority over their body, and dictate their appearance.

And we wonder why the church is becoming effeminate, why Jezebel is running loose, why men aren't leading in the homes and the church and everywhere else?! It's because our church paradigm has stomped on their you know whats and told them to lie down and take it (like a man???).

If people in the church at large are offended by men with beards, I submit that offense is rooted in anti-christ effeminate feminism and misandry. Why else is facial hair even as issue? Why else is facial hair one of the key litmus tests of one's submission to authority?

Because if a man who is not your head can make you shave your face or you cannot participate, minister, or even belong, he can control you (and your wife, implied) any way he wants.

So what is it then, brethren? For many, to have a beard is what? A SIGN OF REBELLION? To God? Nope! To Jesus? Nope! To the Apostles? Nope! To any part of the Bible whatsoever? Nope! The only way a beard gives off an alleged sign of rebellion is when the person offended by it realizes he cannot control that man as his head. That's it. End of story.

Brothers, shave if you want to. IF YOU WANT TO. That's between your head Jesus and your wife, if you're married. But likewise, brothers. Grow your beard IF YOU WANT TO. And if someone snaps on you and puts you down or puts you out, well, if you've read this, now you know the reason why. Strings attached Christianity means someone is pulling strings, and that's no different than a marionettist working his puppets, making them dance.

I've heard and read and listened to all the reasons why a pastor or a group of elders has the right to establish "standards" as they see fit, but the fact of the matter is, the only right anyone has is to point to the Holy Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit dictate the matter. Anything beyond the teachings of the Word is EXTRA-BIBLICAL. And doing or teaching anything extra-Biblical is heretical and even damning, as the case may be. If you want to invite that upon yourself, you be my guest. I will try to stand in the way for as long as I can or as long as the Lord allows, but anyone who is readily and easily jeopardizing their soul is already very hard to help, indeed.

Real men, men of God used to tremble at God's Word, and dare not add a single jot or tittle to it, lest they be plagued by God, or dare reduce it one iota, lest their names be stricken from the Book of Life.

Effeminate, weak, post-modern "men" of their own bellies do as they please, and tremble at nothing but their own narcissism.

People say having a beard is a sign of pride, ego, or arrogance and that's sin. No, that's not it at all. It's that not having one is (or can be), according to the Holy Scriptures, a sign of shame, dishonor, contempt, and humiliation, something King David understood, and something, I think, the Son of David understood, too, when the Romans ripped His beard out of His face when they reproached, degraded, humiliated, and tortured Him. His visage was marred worse than any man's, right? Such that he couldn't recognized as a man.

So, let's be real about what's happening here. Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all. Their manhood is being eroded right from underneath them, and their headship is being usurped, as is the authority their wives, if married, have over their bodies. This is spiritual and it takes discernment to see it.

Maybe once upon a time in the 60's the counter-culture wore beards to make a statement and take a stand, and so, preachers naturally gravitated toward being clean-shaven to stand apart from that attitude. But in today's world, the counter-cultural revolution happening now is the skinny jeans-wearing, limp-wristed, snow-flaked millennials who high-five each other for successfully adulting a couple times a week, whose ability to reproduce is in question, who can't even grow peach fuzz because momma's fed them soy all their lives, and being androgynous is all the rave.

So, how about our preachers stand apart from that? What a stand for manhood might that be! Or did Jesus make a mistake calling hard, tough as nails, calloused, bearded, rough around the edges, worked hard, lived hard, men from Galilee for His apostles? Should He have called women?

This is the best post on aff in recent memory.

Possibly ever!!!!!

[Michael The Disciple]

This is the best post on aff in recent memory.

Possibly ever!!!!!

It needs to be published at the organizational headquarters of the UPC and all other groups of "Apostolic" believers.

[houston]

Great post, Votive.

[Aquila]

There seems to me to be a question underneath the question. Is it a sin to be a man? To be masculine?

We might at first scoff at the sheer stupidity of the thought that such questions raise. But hold a moment and ask yourself: what is the currently most attacked and maligned and marginalized portion of society here in the USA?

It's the masculine, uncompromising alpha male. The "man" that is being held up in today's world as the pinnacle of masculinity is small, even petite, thin, no shoulders, weak chin, high voice, and could pass as a girl if called upon. The world used to want heroes, now it wants comforters and makers of safe spaces. Modern feminism seeks to emasculate men wholesale.

Men are biologically and genetically predisposed to grow facial hair. It comes as a result of the production of testosterone from within you know where, in particular, the metabolite of testosterone called DHT or dihydrotestosterone. Some men produce more than others, some men LOTS more than others, but all men produce some amount. To deny one's growth of facial hair can be a choice freely made, for the purpose of appearance or convenience, if one chooses.

But to slice and dice the God-given, naturally growing hair of the face because someone claims to have the right to control your appearance? That's something else entirely. Now, one enters the military, they are agreeing to that control. One takes a job with company that has a strict facial hair policy, again, they are agreeing to that control. But note! It's still a form of control.

And in the church, where we all see and recognize the activity of Jezebel, or of worldliness, metrosexuality, feminism, and etc. having gained a stronghold, maybe not locally at your particular place of meeting, but generally speaking, we can all speak to it existing and being a spiritual force which we must withstand.

And one of, if not the only way to do so, to withstand, is to un-emasculate and reinvigorate the men of the Body. And a way to do that is to simply let the testosterone of their genetic make-up have its way. Will it result in facial hair? Yes, it will.

But it will also affect bone density, deepening of voice, increase in the size of the adam's apple, shoulder width, give a man a healthy libido (to be used in the confines of the undefiled marriage bed), greater physical strength, and etc.

Effectively, it will naturally cause men to become men again. And the only thing I can think of that would be against such a thing is a spirit of misandry, call it Jezebel if you wish, but it's all the same. The head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, even as the head of every woman is the man. The man, that is, the married husband under Christ who is under God, has no authority over his own body, but rather, that power is given to the woman, the wife, and vice versa. No one else can claim such an authority. No one. And to emasculate a man and force him to be clean-shaven as an act of submission is to treat that man like a dog and in the process, hurt his marriage.

Over the years I've been in so many meetings and counseling sessions and whatever, where women whine and moan and berate their husbands for not this, not that, not whatever, complaining he's not spiritual enough, he doesn't pray enough, blah, blah, blah, blah. Women want their men to lead, but then find their men are programmed not to because a "head" other than Christ is making decisions for him that God alone has given that man to make.

Think about it for a moment. I was in a leadership meeting one time and the pastor, in front of their men, was ordering the women on what they can and cannot wear, what length their sleeves had to be, how long their skirts had to be, what they could mow the lawn in or do choirs in and what they could not.

And the worst part of such asinine bunk is people just absorbed it in like it was okay for one man who was not the head of any of those other women, to take control and have authority over their body, and dictate their appearance.

And we wonder why the church is becoming effeminate, why Jezebel is running loose, why men aren't leading in the homes and the church and everywhere else?! It's because our church paradigm has stomped on their you know whats and told them to lie down and take it (like a man???).

If people in the church at large are offended by men with beards, I submit that offense is rooted in anti-christ effeminate feminism and misandry. Why else is facial hair even as issue? Why else is facial hair one of the key litmus tests of one's submission to authority?

Because if a man who is not your head can make you shave your face or you cannot participate, minister, or even belong, he can control you (and your wife, implied) any way he wants.

So what is it then, brethren? For many, to have a beard is what? A SIGN OF REBELLION? To God? Nope! To Jesus? Nope! To the Apostles? Nope! To any part of the Bible whatsoever? Nope! The only way a beard gives off an alleged sign of rebellion is when the person offended by it realizes he cannot control that man as his head. That's it. End of story.

Brothers, shave if you want to. IF YOU WANT TO. That's between your head Jesus and your wife, if you're married. But likewise, brothers. Grow your beard IF YOU WANT TO. And if someone snaps on you and puts you down or puts you out, well, if you've read this, now you know the reason why. Strings attached Christianity means someone is pulling strings, and that's no different than a marionettist working his puppets, making them dance.

I've heard and read and listened to all the reasons why a pastor or a group of elders has the right to establish "standards" as they see fit, but the fact of the matter is, the only right anyone has is to point to the Holy Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit dictate the matter. Anything beyond the teachings of the Word is EXTRA-BIBLICAL. And doing or teaching anything extra-Biblical is heretical and even damning, as the case may be. If you want to invite that upon yourself, you be my guest. I will try to stand in the way for as long as I can or as long as the Lord allows, but anyone who is readily and easily jeopardizing their soul is already very hard to help, indeed.

Real men, men of God used to tremble at God's Word, and dare not add a single jot or tittle to it, lest they be plagued by God, or dare reduce it one iota, lest their names be stricken from the Book of Life.

Effeminate, weak, post-modern "men" of their own bellies do as they please, and tremble at nothing but their own narcissism.

People say having a beard is a sign of pride, ego, or arrogance and that's sin. No, that's not it at all. It's that not having one is (or can be), according to the Holy Scriptures, a sign of shame, dishonor, contempt, and humiliation, something King David understood, and something, I think, the Son of David understood, too, when the Romans ripped His beard out of His face when they reproached, degraded, humiliated, and tortured Him. His visage was marred worse than any man's, right? Such that he couldn't recognized as a man.

So, let's be real about what's happening here. Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all. Their manhood is being eroded right from underneath them, and their headship is being usurped, as is the authority their wives, if married, have over their bodies. This is spiritual and it takes discernment to see it.

Maybe once upon a time in the 60's the counter-culture wore beards to make a statement and take a stand, and so, preachers naturally gravitated toward being clean-shaven to stand apart from that attitude. But in today's world, the counter-cultural revolution happening now is the skinny jeans-wearing, limp-wristed, snow-flaked millennials who high-five each other for successfully adulting a couple times a week, whose ability to reproduce is in question, who can't even grow peach fuzz because momma's fed them soy all their lives, and being androgynous is all the rave.

So, how about our preachers stand apart from that? What a stand for manhood might that be! Or did Jesus make a mistake calling hard, tough as nails, calloused, bearded, rough around the edges, worked hard, lived hard, men from Galilee for His apostles? Should He have called women?

Wow. Amen! :yourock

[votivesoul]

Brother Aaron, are you saying that growing a beard will cause the following effect:

"But it will also affect bone density, deepening of voice, increase in the size of the adam's apple, shoulder width, give a man a healthy libido (to be used in the confines of the undefiled marriage bed), greater physical strength, and etc."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, Sister. I am saying that testosterone plays the key role in all of that happening, and part of making sure a man has a healthy level of testosterone is having the ability to grow facial hair. Apart from an injury, some other genetic defect, or ethnic reason, if a man cannot grow facial hair, his levels of testosterone, and in particular, DHT, are low. And low levels of testosterone lead to deficiencies in every other area of a man's life. Look up male androgens and hormonal balance for men.

The very fabric of male DNA is being deleted from the male population of our nation. And it's spiritual. And it needs to be resisted.

However, if a man has stubble coming in regularly but doesn't like or want it, and wants to remove it from his face, go for it. It's his choice. That's not a testosterone issue. But look at the young eighteen year old of today. Where is his facial hair? Does he even have any? Or does he have to borrow it from dad like he does dad's car?

Sis, I know you see it. Men are everywhere degraded in our society and culture. It ought not to be in the church. The culture of our nation degrades women just as much, and screams at Christian women who want to stay home, raise a family, be a helper and not a leader, and etc., and we say that the church must stand up against this onslaught on Biblical women-hood. As well we should. But we must stand up and say the same things regarding this onslaught on Biblical man-hood.

And one of the best ways to do that is to let go of the idea that the head of every man is Christ, but this other guy, too, and the head of every woman is the man, but this other guy, too. And one of the best ways of letting that go, is to stop enforcing a facial hair standard on men. It is all connected.

[houston]

I wish I could grow a beard

[Michael The Disciple]

Michael, were you ever faced with unjustified and unbiblical condemnation over your beard?

Just the usual shunning. Once an Apostolic women was heard to say, "you know hes not of God look whats on his face"! I have never accepted condemnation for it. I have made it an issue in my life simply on Biblical grounds.

I wanted to invite my friends or people I witnessed to to come to Church. But I was ashamed to do so because I knew there was a chance they would be attacked for unbiblical reasons. That is why its worth contending over it. People who WOULD attend Apostolic Churches for Oneness doctrine and baptism in Jesus name are told they are still "unholy" and "unrespectable".

When they perceive the shallowness of such doctrine they return to their Trinitarian Churches. Then the Apostolic Preacher says they are going to burn in Hell forever for not loving the truth! If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.

[Aquila]

It needs to be published at the organizational headquarters of the UPC and all other groups of "Apostolic" believers.

Amen.

I know of a local church that has an effeminate young man in charge of the music ministry. I was uncomfortable just sitting in the choir with him leading because he was so flaming. He had the limp wristed, skinny jean, look Votive was talking about. It made me cringe. The dude was flaming. Yet everyone acted like they didn't notice because he was in the pastor's family. He'd prance around and cry like a little girl during choir. It was actually rather embarrassing to me. My wife at the time looked at me and said, "I think his wife is going to have a rude awakening when he comes out." Even she saw it!

But, I enjoy growing a beard. I served in the military for 8 years, shaved every day. I got out of the military, attended a holiness Apostolic church where beards were considered "sin", and continued to shave for nearly 12 years. Then one day, when I was no longer attending that church, I decided to grow it out on a No Shave November. I actually discovered that I liked it. It suited by personality far better. I do take pride in my beard. But it's no worse than the pride I take in having a nice haircut or wearing nice clothes. It's more of a pride in who and what I am, a man. I've had compliments on my beard and Christina really likes it. I've worn a beard now for over 6 years.

While surveying the "Apostolic" churches around me, I've realized all of them will expect me to shave. I have no interest in shaving. This is a part of who I am. And so, I've started contemplating how the entire teaching is a false doctrine, a tradition of men.

[Amanah]

My husband has a beard, so hey.

Apostolic men unite! grow a beard!

[votivesoul]

The way I look at it is like this:

With the notion that the "head of Christ is God", when Simon Peter didn't savor the things of God, and tried to be Christ's head, and tell Him what to do regarding the cross, Jesus rebuked him hardcore and called him "Satan". Jesus wouldn't allow anyone to get between Him and His Head, which is God, the Father.

So, since Christ is the Head of every man, should any man do differently than Jesus did to Simon Peter?

The fact is, the Twelve are dead and so is Paul, and they aren't ever going to be replaced. Never have been, never will be. The canon is closed, right? We believe that, right? If so, then out of personal obligation to the closing of that canon that He Himself instituted, Jesus cannot give any man anywhere, no matter how spiritual or anointed they may be, a command that exists outside of the closed canon and then make it covenantly binding on others.

Now, Jesus may command a specific man to do a specific thing, and for that man, it is covenantly binding. But Jesus cannot utter a command to one man and tell that man to go and make it binding on other men, if it's not already canonized in the Holy Scriptures, else, the Lord violates His closed Word, that He Himself closed, meaning Jesus otherwise can freely make anything binding on anyone, without a book, chapter, or verse, to show for it. Is that what we believe?

But that's what we do when we make extra-biblical ideas (standards?) binding on other people. We are essentially saying Jesus has given us the right to take something from outside of the Bible and make you have to obey it.

But how do we know it's really from Jesus?

Because we're the pastor? elder? bishop? prophet? catholic magisterium? fill in the blank? and what we say is law?

Because that's how it works whenever anyone puts upon you an extra-Biblical standard or teaching and plays the "God told me" card on you.

They are usurping the Lord Jesus Christ and He will make them pay for it later if they don't repent of it now.

Is it a salvation issue? That's what everyone wants to know, right? Wrong question to ask. Instead ask: If I say, do, teach, or preach this, or try to make this binding on other people, but it's not really in the Bible, have I kicked Jesus off His throne so I can be King?

That's the real question. And if the answer is "yes", you better start trembling. END OF STORY.

[votivesoul]

I wish I could grow a beard

You'd be surprised what can happen. There are natural means of increasing testosterone, which will automatically cause increased facial hair. Unless you had some bad frost-bite or have an ethnic disposition toward no facial hair (as many Native Americans do), it's otherwise entirely within reason that you can, with help.

I mean, transgendered "men" so-called, end up growing facial hair, adam's apples, and etc. So if it can be done with these women, it can certainly be done with actual men.

[votivesoul]

My husband has a beard, so hey.

Apostolic men unite! grow a beard!

:thumbsup

[Amanah]

wasn't he teasing? he looks hairy to me.

[votivesoul]

wasn't he teasing? he looks hairy to me.

Maybe? But if he cannot grow beyond that, or if there are a lot of gaps that aren't showing, then I can see how he means he wishes he could grow a beard.

Brother, if it's just gaps, don't fret it. As you grow, the rest of your beard will fill in around the gaps and then cover them up.

[Tithesmeister]

No, Sister. I am saying that testosterone plays the key role in all of that happening, and part of making sure a man has a healthy level of testosterone is having the ability to grow facial hair. Apart from an injury, some other genetic defect, or ethnic reason, if a man cannot grow facial hair, his levels of testosterone, and in particular, DHT, are low. And low levels of testosterone lead to deficiencies in every other area of a man's life. Look up male androgens and hormonal balance for men.

The very fabric of male DNA is being deleted from the male population of our nation. And it's spiritual. And it needs to be resisted.

However, if a man has stubble coming in regularly but doesn't like or want it, and wants to remove it from his face, go for it. It's his choice. That's not a testosterone issue. But look at the young eighteen year old of today. Where is his facial hair? Does he even have any? Or does he have to borrow it from dad like he does dad's car?

Sis, I know you see it. Men are everywhere degraded in our society and culture. It ought not to be in the church. The culture of our nation degrades women just as much, and screams at Christian women who want to stay home, raise a family, be a helper and not a leader, and etc., and we say that the church must stand up against this onslaught on Biblical women-hood. As well we should. But we must stand up and say the same things regarding this onslaught on Biblical man-hood.


Votive Soul,

I was planning to make a post along these very lines. I was not at my computer and did not want to try to post so much content on my phone. I am SO GLAD that you beat me to the draw on this one, because I could have no way articulated as effectively as you have. I am going to try to reinforce what you have stated. I apologize in advance for diluting your message in any way. Here goes.

I thought I was the only one who could see what you describe in your post. When you speak of David's servants having their beards half shaven . . . Allow me to expound on that.

Bible, King James Version

2Sam.10 Verses 1 to 5

[1] And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
[2] Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
[3] And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?
[4] Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
[5] When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.

Notice how the men were so ashamed. And David's reaction to their plight? Stay away until your beard grows out.

Why not just give them some clothes and let them shave the other half of their beard?

Because their beard was deeply connected to their man-hood!!!

Another situation occurs in . . .

Bible, King James Version


Deut.23
[1] He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

The man who had his manhood trampled on as you have described, would not even be allowed to be counted amongst the congregation of the LORD in the Old Testament.

Is our manhood important to God?

I think so. It is crucially important!

[n david]

Guess you're bored and decided to beat a dead horse, eh Aquila?

I've never heard beard preached as a sin. Period. I was born and raised in the UPCI, attending camp meetings, conventions, conferences and revival services in districts around the US. The church I attend now is UPC. Again, I've never heard it preached against as a sin.

Here's the deal, and I know you won't like it, but it is what it is so deal with it: if a Pastor wants to have a dress code for those participating on the platform there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story.

It's ridiculous that people will do anything an employer asks of them, dress how the employer demands they dress --- even to the point of shaving their beard if the company's dress code states they must be clean shaven --- and with no complaint!

But let a Pastor have a dress code for people participating on the platform and the complaints and accusations of false doctrine begin.

"Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all."

That's straight trash. God placed a Pastor to lead the church. If I'm attending that church, I should be willing to be obedient to the man God placed to lead that church. You claim men aren't really men if they follow a dress code. Absurd. Also, does this apply to secular employment as well? If an employer's dress code says men must be clean shaven, are they less a man for doing so. Gimme a break!

Again, let's review:
A Pastor may require a dress code for those who wish to be involved in ministry on the platform at the church God placed them to lead;

Said dress code is not required to show chapter and verse for each line item

If you disagree, then you should find somewhere else to worship.

The end.

[Michael The Disciple]

But one main reason I was not humiliated over a beard much was that I did not last long in mainstream Apostolic Churches. As a brand new Jesus Only believer having come up in The Jesus Movement and the Charismatic movement I joined an Apostolic Church in 1982 in Springfield Ohio.

The Pastor explained to me the standards of the Church. No one with a beard could be a member yet he said "Brother Gibson no one is going to Hell over a beard". I shaved then my first meeting there he announced I would be teaching the midweek meeting. Soon afterwards I was appointed an Elder.

As time went on I noticed the visiting Preachers usually hammered on the standards and made comments like "theres a bunch of devils running around out there preaching there is Bible for beards"! To me that was pitiful and shameful. The Pastors brother in law showed up one night with a beard and a visiting preacher made sport of him until he got up and fled the Church.

Well after a year of such things the Pastor got up and preached a message on perfection. It was a direct refutation of the doctrine I had been teaching. We were told Bible perfection was for men to shave, take off watches and rings and wear long sleeves. For women to never cut their hair again and never wear pants, make up or jewelry.

That was Biblical perfection.

It was my last time there.

Since then I have been part of Apostolic groups but never mainstream ones.

I met with the E

[Michael The Disciple]

My husband has a beard, so hey.

Apostolic men unite! grow a beard!

:highfive

[votivesoul]

Guess you're bored and decided to beat a dead horse, eh Aquila?

I've never heard beard preached as a sin. Period. I was born and raised in the UPCI, attending camp meetings, conventions, conferences and revival services in districts around the US. The church I attend now is UPC. Again, I've never heard it preached against as a sin.

Here's the deal, and I know you won't like it, but it is what it is so deal with it: if a Pastor wants to have a dress code for those participating on the platform there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story.

It's ridiculous that people will do anything an employer asks of them, dress how the employer demands they dress --- even to the point of shaving their beard if the company's dress code states they must be clean shaven --- and with no complaint!

But let a Pastor have a dress code for people participating on the platform and the complaints and accusations of false doctrine begin.

"Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all."

That's straight trash. God placed a Pastor to lead the church. If I'm attending that church, I should be willing to be obedient to the man God placed to lead that church. You claim men aren't really men if they follow a dress code. Absurd. Also, does this apply to secular employment as well? If an employer's dress code says men must be clean shaven, are they less a man for doing so. Gimme a break!

Again, let's review:
A Pastor may require a dress code for those who wish to be involved in ministry on the platform at the church God placed them to lead;

Said dress code is not required to show chapter and verse for each line item

If you disagree, then you should find somewhere else to worship.

The end.

We ought never compare the pillar and ground of the truth of the Living God and Creator and Savior to secular employment. The way the Body of Christ is to exist, operate, and function is so far removed from all that is secular, as to be seen as foreign or alien to the ways of the world. One is holy, the very Bride of the Anointed One, the other is profane, or at least merely mundane, and has nothing to do with the other.

To even suggest such a thing...

And, to have no Bible for standards and that being okay is tantamount to mutiny. It makes Jesus not be the Head of that Body if His Word can be disregarded and something else can be propped up in its place.

Maybe being raised in the UPC your whole life gives you a skewed view of things? At least as much as being raised in the world for one's whole life gives a person a skewed view of the UPC? The tendency toward bias is ever present with all of us, after all.

[houston]

wasn't he teasing? he looks hairy to me.

Yeah. But it takes longer to grow now. Two weeks for a decent shadow. Used to take 2 days.

[Michael The Disciple]

at FPC Palm Bay right now, men have beards for the Messiah Drama and are wearing them on the platform.

They grew them out for the play.

This is my whole point Friend. Years ago I visited an Easter play at the Church Aquila came up in. It was ultracon as they come. Beards were as he testified "sin".

Yet at this PLAY the guy who PLAYED Simon Peter wore a costume beard! They were forced to admit in this PLAY about Jesus Christ that the Apostle Peter wore a beard. Acts 2:38 was first preached by a MAN WITH A BEARD!

Yet at the next meeting they probably went right on with the program teaching men are not holy or respectable or worse case scenario downright in sin!

[Amanah]

This is my whole point Friend. Years ago I visited an Easter play at the Church Aquila came up in. It was ultracon as they come. Beards were as he testified "sin".

Yet at this PLAY the guy who PLAYED Simon Peter wore a costume beard! They were forced to admit in this PLAY about Jesus Christ that the Apostle Peter wore a beard. Acts 2:38 was first preached by a MAN WITH A BEARD!

Yet at the next meeting they probably went right on with the program teaching men are not holy or respectable or worse case scenario downright in sin!

no, our preacher is younger, beards are not taught against.

the men on the platform for the play grew their real beards out.

the platform standards are for the old timers (my guess), eventually the beard thing will die out.

[TJJJ]

I'm against men having long uncut facial hair.

[houston]

:throwrockI'm against men having long uncut facial hair.

[TJJJ]

:throwrock

Man, I thought my dog was ugly........




:dogpat

[Michael The Disciple]

N DAVID

Here's the deal, and I know you won't like it, but it is what it is so deal with it: if a Pastor wants to have a dress code for those participating on the platform there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story.

And this my friends is the seed of all false doctrine and hypocrisy. No chapter and verse needed. Well obviously because there is none.

But put the shoe on the other foot now. A Catholic is told he is in the true Church. He questions the Friar about Oneness or some other doctrine. The Friar explains HE is the man of God and God has placed the man under his authority.

HE NEEDS NO CHAPTER AND VERSE. HE IS THE MAN OF GOD.

OH but now the Catholic man must go and burn in Hell for trillions of years! why? Because he used the same line of reasoning as N Dave.

So the principal for "Apostolics" is valid but is invalid for anyone else. Yea right.

NO CHAPTER OR VERSE NEEDED.

[Tithesmeister]

Guess you're bored and decided to beat a dead horse, eh Aquila?

I've never heard beard preached as a sin. Period. I was born and raised in the UPCI, attending camp meetings, conventions, conferences and revival services in districts around the US. The church I attend now is UPC. Again, I've never heard it preached against as a sin.

I could describe myself in the same terms, and I have definitely heard it described as sin. If you don't realize that this is the case you must have been living under a rock somewhere. Also actions speak louder than words, and the actions are deafening.

Here's the deal, and I know you won't like it, but it is what it is so deal with it: if a Pastor wants to have a dress code for those participating on the platform there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story.

HMM. It makes you wonder why Paul thought the Bereans were more noble than the saints at Thessalonika because they studied the scripture daily to see if these things be so. If the Apostle Paul was not afraid to be held accountable to the scriptures, perhaps our pastors should not be either.

It's ridiculous that people will do anything an employer asks of them, dress how the employer demands they dress --- even to the point of shaving their beard if the company's dress code states they must be clean shaven --- and with no complaint!

It is NOT ridiculous, it is commendable, and it is noble, according to the Apostle Paul. (See above.)

But let a Pastor have a dress code for people participating on the platform and the complaints and accusations of false doctrine begin.

"Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all."

That's straight trash. God placed a Pastor to lead the church.

I am not aware of ANY instance of God placing a pastor, or any other single authoritative figure over a church, ever. Could you please provide scripture to support this notion? From the Bible? [/COLOR

]If I'm attending that church, I should be willing to be obedient to the man God placed to lead that church.

[COLOR="darkred"]Elders were ordained to oversee the churches. Always plural. Pastors ordained to lead a church? Extra-biblical. Scripture to support this statement please?

You claim men aren't really men if they follow a dress code. Absurd. Also, does this apply to secular employment as well? If an employer's dress code says men must be clean shaven, are they less a man for doing so. Gimme a break!

Again, let's review:
A Pastor may require a dress code for those who wish to be involved in ministry on the platform at the church God placed them to lead;

Said dress code is not required to show chapter and verse for each line item

If you disagree, then you should find somewhere else to worship.

Now this I may agree with.

The end.

I'll be waiting on those scripture references!!



Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes.

[Aquila]

Guess you're bored and decided to beat a dead horse, eh Aquila?

No. I'm a man with a beard, looking at Apostolic churches to attend in my area. All teach against beards. I can't find a prohibition against beards in my Bible, so... I'm wondering if it can be classified as a false doctrine.

I've never heard beard preached as a sin. Period. I was born and raised in the UPCI, attending camp meetings, conventions, conferences and revival services in districts around the US. The church I attend now is UPC. Again, I've never heard it preached against as a sin.

I find it interesting that so many who are against beards, or support pastors who have standards against beards, NEVER heard it preached that having a beard is a sin. While it's possible that you have NEVER heard it preached against as a sin to have a beard by pastoral decree... I'm in doubt. I'm sure that you've heard it somewhere after all those years in Pentecost.

Here's the deal, and I know you won't like it, but it is what it is so deal with it: if a Pastor wants to have a dress code for those participating on the platform there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story.

So, Apostolic pastors don't have to preach the Word of God? They can preach their opinions? I believe in standards. But I believe that a standard should be based on Scripture. Modesty is in Scripture. So, various modesty standards are reasonable in my eyes. But nowhere are beards condemned in Scripture. So much for being silent where the Bible is silent, and speaking where the Bible speaks. You just made the case that Apostolic pastors don't have to teach a way of life grounded in Scripture.

It's ridiculous that people will do anything an employer asks of them, dress how the employer demands they dress --- even to the point of shaving their beard if the company's dress code states they must be clean shaven --- and with no complaint!

Ahhhh... there it is. The institutional corporate worldview that equates church with worldly incorporation. The church isn't Walmart. It isn't a corporation. It isn't a business. It's the Kingdom of God. If you don't like an employer's standards, you can freely find another employer. But if all the Apostolic pastors around you teach something that isn't biblical, and you have no desire to listen to their unbiblical mess, where do you go? What do you do? Comparing the church to a secular business is wrong headed. In addition, it reinforces the dangers of institutionalized religion. The institution has the authority to add to the Word of God. It's all wrong. How can we rebuke Catholics for all their stupid and unbiblical teachings, when we champion our own???

But let a Pastor have a dress code for people participating on the platform and the complaints and accusations of false doctrine begin.

Ummm... if it's in the Bible, I have no issues with it. But if it is his opinion, he's preaching his opinion, not Scripture.

"Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all."

That's straight trash. God placed a Pastor to lead the church. If I'm attending that church, I should be willing to be obedient to the man God placed to lead that church.

No. I'm pointing out a doctrine and tradition of men... unless you can provide Bible for it no one is obligated to obey it. If your pastor commanded you to wear a tinfoil hat and a purple polka dot suit, would you do it??? It's not Scriptural. It's an abuse of power. It's everything those who champion Bible over tradition stand against.

You claim men aren't really men if they follow a dress code. Absurd.

I have no issue with dress codes that encourage modesty. Modest is a biblical Christian discipline.

Also, does this apply to secular employment as well? If an employer's dress code says men must be clean shaven, are they less a man for doing so. Gimme a break!

Again, you're seeing the church as a worldly corporate institution ruled by men instead of a spiritual Kingdom bound to the Word of God.

Again, let's review:
A Pastor may require a dress code for those who wish to be involved in ministry on the platform at the church God placed them to lead;

Said dress code is not required to show chapter and verse for each line item

Dress codes emphasizing modesty aren't an issue to me.

If you disagree, then you should find somewhere else to worship.

The end.

Actually, that's kinda why I asked this question. I AM looking for an Apostolic church to attend.

[n david]

We ought never compare the pillar and ground of the truth of the Living God and Creator and Savior to secular employment. The way the Body of Christ is to exist, operate, and function is so far removed from all that is secular, as to be seen as foreign or alien to the ways of the world. One is holy, the very Bride of the Anointed One, the other is profane, or at least merely mundane, and has nothing to do with the other.

To even suggest such a thing...
It does have something to do with it. When a person degrades the role of a Pastor, openly calling for men to rebel against them, it shows there's a bigger issue than just disagreeing with a dress code.

And, to have no Bible for standards and that being okay is tantamount to mutiny.
So posting that men should rebel against a Pastor who is placed to lead a church is okay? Hypocrisy. You flat out told men to rebel against their Pastor. And you're admin? Seriously?

What do you believe the role of the Pastor is? Please explain this, because your post shows you have no respect for the role. So what do you believe the role of a Pastor is?

It makes Jesus not be the Head of that Body if His Word can be disregarded and something else can be propped up in its place.
Wrong. We're not talking about church doctrine or salvation. Again, I have never in the years I've been alive and churches I have visited, I have never personally heard a Pastor or other minister say it is a sin to grow a beard. Having a dress code does NOT disregard the Word, nor does it remove God as the Head of the Body.

Maybe being raised in the UPC your whole life gives you a skewed view of things? At least as much as being raised in the world for one's whole life gives a person a skewed view of the UPC? The tendency toward bias is ever present with all of us, after all.
Sure, because I hold a different view than you, I'M the one who has a skewed view and biased view...

Do you shave or grow a beard?

[Aquila]

But one main reason I was not humiliated over a beard much was that I did not last long in mainstream Apostolic Churches. As a brand new Jesus Only believer having come up in The Jesus Movement and the Charismatic movement I joined an Apostolic Church in 1982 in Springfield Ohio.

The Pastor explained to me the standards of the Church. No one with a beard could be a member yet he said "Brother Gibson no one is going to Hell over a beard". I shaved then my first meeting there he announced I would be teaching the midweek meeting. Soon afterwards I was appointed an Elder.

As time went on I noticed the visiting Preachers usually hammered on the standards and made comments like "theres a bunch of devils running around out there preaching there is Bible for beards"! To me that was pitiful and shameful. The Pastors brother in law showed up one night with a beard and a visiting preacher made sport of him until he got up and fled the Church.

Well after a year of such things the Pastor got up and preached a message on perfection. It was a direct refutation of the doctrine I had been teaching. We were told Bible perfection was for men to shave, take off watches and rings and wear long sleeves. For women to never cut their hair again and never wear pants, make up or jewelry.

That was Biblical perfection.

It was my last time there.

Since then I have been part of Apostolic groups but never mainstream ones.

I met with the E

Nobody here against beards ever heard them preached as sin. :heeheehee

[n david]

And this my friends is the seed of all false doctrine and hypocrisy. No chapter and verse needed. Well obviously because there is none.

But put the shoe on the other foot now. A Catholic is told he is in the true Church. He questions the Friar about Oneness or some other doctrine. The Friar explains HE is the man of God and God has placed the man under his authority.

HE NEEDS NO CHAPTER AND VERSE. HE IS THE MAN OF GOD.

OH but now the Catholic man must go and burn in Hell for trillions of years! why? Because he used the same line of reasoning as N Dave.

So the principal for "Apostolics" is valid but is invalid for anyone else. Yea right.

NO CHAPTER OR VERSE NEEDED.
This is about a dress code, Mike. Not salvific doctrine.

[Aquila]

This is my whole point Friend. Years ago I visited an Easter play at the Church Aquila came up in. It was ultracon as they come. Beards were as he testified "sin".

Yet at this PLAY the guy who PLAYED Simon Peter wore a costume beard! They were forced to admit in this PLAY about Jesus Christ that the Apostle Peter wore a beard. Acts 2:38 was first preached by a MAN WITH A BEARD!

Yet at the next meeting they probably went right on with the program teaching men are not holy or respectable or worse case scenario downright in sin!

Yep. I remember Sr. Pastor Shearer telling us that if we grew a beard we'd die and, "bust Hell wide open." I'm so glad someone here knows what I grew up in. Indeed, it was as ultra-con as they come. Yep, nearly 15 years. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. :lol

[Aquila]

It does have something to do with it. When a person degrades the role of a Pastor, openly calling for men to rebel against them, it shows there's a bigger issue than just disagreeing with a dress code.

Ummm... I'm not concerned so much with dress codes that encourage modesty.

So posting that men should rebel against a Pastor who is placed to lead a church is okay? Hypocrisy. You flat out told men to rebel against their Pastor. And you're admin? Seriously?

I don't see that. I see Votive stating that men should take a stand for the Scriptures in the face of the traditions and doctrines of men.

What do you believe the role of the Pastor is? Please explain this, because your post shows you have no respect for the role. So what do you believe the role of a Pastor is?

The only one's without respect for the office of pastor are those who abuse it by claiming Pope like authority to invent doctrines in accordance to their personal opinions. That does far more damage to the office of pastor than a man who resists such pastoral abuse.

Wrong. We're not talking about church doctrine or salvation. Again, I have never in the years I've been alive and churches I have visited, I have never personally heard a Pastor or other minister say it is a sin to grow a beard. Having a dress code does NOT disregard the Word, nor does it remove God as the Head of the Body.

Many of us have. Many of us have also heard that it is a "sin" to disobey the pulpit, and so, whatever the pastor says is divine edict... even if it has no biblical foundation. And so, such pulpits often forbid beards, making it a sin. Here's the danger in this teaching... what if a pastor were to convince the church that it is the end of the world and that it would be better to commit mass suicide than to surrender to the authority of the Antichrist? This is the stuff that cults are made of.

Sure, because I hold a different view than you, I'M the one who has a skewed view and biased view...

Do you shave or grow a beard?

Votive said that we all are subject to having bias and therefore we all run the risk of having a skewed perception of an issue. Not just you, my brother.

[Aquila]

This is about a dress code, Mike. Not salvific doctrine.

No. This is about beards. Dress codes are about modesty. Beards are just about appearance.

[houston]

Man, I thought my dog was ugly........




:dogpat

Shouldn’t you be out milking cows?

[n david]

Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes.
If you're not going to be honest about the context in which I posted this, I have no desire to respond to the rest of your post.

[n david]

No. This is about beards. Dress codes are about modesty. Beards are just about appearance.
You're drunk. Or off your meds. :nod

Facial hair is typically always included with a dress code.

[consapente89]

no, our preacher is younger, beards are not taught against.

the men on the platform for the play grew their real beards out.

the platform standards are for the old timers (my guess), eventually the beard thing will die out.

You think all the platform standards? What about uncut hair, the scriptural prohibition against jewelry and make up? Are these all for the old timers too? Will they die out in time?

[Amanah]

You think all the platform standards? What about uncut hair, the scriptural prohibition against jewelry and make up? Are these all for the old timers too? Will they die out in time?

beards.

[Aquila]

You're drunk. Or off your meds. :nod

Facial hair is typically always included with a dress code.

I just want you to understand that I'm not against sound modesty teaching. Modesty is biblical.

But prohibitions against beards are arbitrary human opinions.

[Tithesmeister]

If you're not going to be honest about the context in which I posted this, I have no desire to respond to the rest of your post.

Brother, if I have misrepresented what you intended to say, please accept my sincere apologies. I also extend an invitation to you to explain in your own words what you meant when you said the following . . .

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

Please explain how I am being dishonest when I say that you believe that the pastor should not be held accountable to scripture. If I have misrepresented your position I hope to be man enough to offer sincere apologies. Please proceed to explain what you really meant to say. Maybe then you can respond to the rest of my post with relevant scripture references.

[n david]

No. I'm a man with a beard, looking at Apostolic churches to attend in my area. All teach against beards. I can't find a prohibition against beards in my Bible, so... I'm wondering if it can be classified as a false doctrine.
Here's something to make you happy: If a minister claims that growing a beard is a sin, that is wrong. It's not scriptural.

The original question you ask is whether it is false doctrine. What is false doctrine? First, define what is doctrine. Doctrine is a set of beliefs or teachings based on the Word of God. So false doctrine would be something which is contrary to the beliefs and teaching of the Word of God.

For example: it is biblical doctrine that a person must be born again. False doctrine would then be claiming that you don't need to be born again.

For there to be a claim of false doctrine, there must be a doctrine to begin with. There is no early church doctrine on beards that I have found. So I would answer that it is not false doctrine, but would agree that any minister who claims beards are a sin would be in error.

I find it interesting that so many who are against beards, or support pastors who have standards against beards, NEVER heard it preached that having a beard is a sin. While it's possible that you have NEVER heard it preached against as a sin to have a beard by pastoral decree... I'm in doubt. I'm sure that you've heard it somewhere after all those years in Pentecost.
Again, the churches I've visited/attended included beards in the dress code for ministry/platform. Most of those churches had men in attendance who wore beards. The Pastor of the UPC church I currently attend includes beards in its dress code for ministry/platform. It's a relatively small church (approx 70 or so) and there are a few men who attend who grow either a full beard or mustache. I asked him about it when I first began attending and was told he doesn't believe it to be a sin, only a preference for those in ministry.

So, Apostolic pastors don't have to preach the Word of God? They can preach their opinions?
You're not understanding what I posted. The context was in regards to a Pastor adopting a dress code for ministry/platform. Don't try to twist this into something else.

You just made the case that Apostolic pastors don't have to teach a way of life grounded in Scripture.
Wrong. You're twisting what I posted and taking it completely out of context.

Ahhhh... there it is. The institutional corporate worldview that equates church with worldly incorporation. The church isn't Walmart. It isn't a corporation. It isn't a business. It's the Kingdom of God. If you don't like an employer's standards, you can freely find another employer. But if all the Apostolic pastors around you teach something that isn't biblical, and you have no desire to listen to their unbiblical mess, where do you go? What do you do? Comparing the church to a secular business is wrong headed. In addition, it reinforces the dangers of institutionalized religion. The institution has the authority to add to the Word of God. It's all wrong. How can we rebuke Catholics for all their stupid and unbiblical teachings, when we champion our own???
First, I'm surprised that you would be interested in attending an institutional church at all, what with your previous posts against them. Second, how a person responds shows the condition of their heart. So when a man will shave without a word for the dress code of a secular business, but whine and throw a tantrum over a dress code for ministry in a local church - it shows a lot.

Ummm... if it's in the Bible, I have no issues with it. But if it is his opinion, he's preaching his opinion, not Scripture.
As stated above, I agree that any minister who claims growing a beard is a sin is wrong. I do not believe it is the same as false doctrine, by simple definition.

No. I'm pointing out a doctrine and tradition of men... unless you can provide Bible for it no one is obligated to obey it. If your pastor commanded you to wear a tinfoil hat and a purple polka dot suit, would you do it??? It's not Scriptural. It's an abuse of power. It's everything those who champion Bible over tradition stand against.
Back to context. This is regarding dress code for men who wish to be involved in the ministry/platform. If the church I attended had a dress code stating I had to wear a tinfoil hat and purple polka dot suit to be used in the ministry/platform, I would find another church in which to minister.

See how easy that is?

I have no issue with dress codes that encourage modesty. Modest is a biblical Christian discipline.
Modesty isn't only about a dress code.

Again, you're seeing the church as a worldly corporate institution ruled by men instead of a spiritual Kingdom bound to the Word of God.
That's untrue.

Actually, that's kinda why I asked this question. I AM looking for an Apostolic church to attend.
Which seems odd to me, considering the previous posts made against institutional churches.

[n david]

I just want you to understand that I'm not against sound modesty teaching. Modesty is biblical.

But prohibitions against beards are arbitrary human opinions.
Modesty isn't only about dress.

What I have seen used for ministry/platform guidelines includes more than just dress, so perhaps my calling it a dress code is confusing you.

[1ofthechosen]

liberal UPC church with mood lights that's like a high-class jazz bar and no altars? what planet are you from?

I didn't mean all UPC churches some haven't compromised but I've seen some that are like clubs on videos and stuff. Because all that stuff is to set a mood and draw a crowd. That's a huge thing that's why my church split from the UPC because a lot of that movement has gone that way. Many churches compromised standards and even Acts 2:38. All I was saying you can find a church that is compromising just trying to draw a crowd if you look is all. Didn't mean any disrespect to those attending UPC churches.

[n david]

Brother, if I have misrepresented what you intended to say, please accept my sincere apologies. I also extend an invitation to you to explain in your own words what you meant when you said the following . . .

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

Please explain how I am being dishonest when I say that you believe that the pastor should not be held accountable to scripture. If I have misrepresented your position I hope to be man enough to offer sincere apologies. Please proceed to explain what you really meant to say. Maybe then you can respond to the rest of my post with relevant scripture references.
I appreciate this post, thank you.

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

This was regarding guidelines set for those who wish to be involved in a church ministry or on the platform. This isn't about a doctrine being preached. This is simply about guidelines and preferences for dress, appearance and conduct for those who desire to be used in ministry/platform. These may include things which are not sin and as such do not have chapter and verse, but are the preference of the church leadership. I have served on the church board/Pastoral counsel of two churches, so this may not be indicative of how things are done elsewhere -- in those churches, these guidelines were set by the church board.

Your response at the end included: "Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes."

That is simply untrue and takes out of context my statement.

[derAlte]

I've been around a few decades and have heard all sorts of reasons why a man should not have a beard...i.e. that male facial hair is actually male makeup, that one is identifying oneself with liberal clergyman, or the hippy movement, etc. In my judgment (that and 5 cents will get you a cup of coffee at Wall Drug in South Dakota) it is simply not intellectually honest to proclaim male facial hair a sin. There isn't a lick of scripture against it. The clincher for me is the fact that the Lord Jesus himself, whom we sing that we want to be like, had a beard. End of story. He is the ultimate arbiter of what is sin and what is not. If He did it, it must not be wrong.

Do I have a beard? No. I don't like having a bushy face. I don't think my Friend cares that I stay clean shaven. I don't condemn anyone who has facial hair. If someone grows a beard just rile up those in authority, it isn't the hair that's the problem, its the heart. We live in a world full of cantankerous and ornery people who would grow a beard just to get a rise. I'm not sure being right on facial hair and out of unity with the body is worth it.

We have ministers in our UPCI district that have facial hair and they are accepted by most who have realized that God is not about to write "Ichabod" over the life of a guy just because he has some hair on his face.

I heard that a preacher in another state sent his son out to start a branch work. The son, after pastoring this branch work for awhile decided to grow a beard. As far as I know, the son still pastors the branch work but when he returns to his dad's church, he is only allowed to run the sound booth because of his beard. This sounds awfully silly to me. I'm not sure the son's attitude was right by growing it but it seems strange that he can pastor out in the field but his ministry is not acknowledged in the home church because of some hair on his face.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I appreciate this post, thank you.

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

This was regarding guidelines set for those who wish to be involved in a church ministry or on the platform. This isn't about a doctrine being preached. This is simply about guidelines and preferences for dress, appearance and conduct for those who desire to be used in ministry/platform. These may include things which are not sin and as such do not have chapter and verse, but are the preference of the church leadership. I have served on the church board/Pastoral counsel of two churches, so this may not be indicative of how things are done elsewhere -- in those churches, these guidelines were set by the church board.

Your response at the end included: "Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes."

That is simply untrue and takes out of context my statement.


Here's something to make you happy: If a minister claims that growing a beard is a sin, that is wrong. It's not scriptural.

The original question you ask is whether it is false doctrine. What is false doctrine? First, define what is doctrine. Doctrine is a set of beliefs or teachings based on the Word of God. So false doctrine would be something which is contrary to the beliefs and teaching of the Word of God.

For example: it is biblical doctrine that a person must be born again. False doctrine would then be claiming that you don't need to be born again.

For there to be a claim of false doctrine, there must be a doctrine to begin with. There is no early church doctrine on beards that I have found. So I would answer that it is not false doctrine, but would agree that any minister who claims beards are a sin would be in error.


Again, the churches I've visited/attended included beards in the dress code for ministry/platform. Most of those churches had men in attendance who wore beards. The Pastor of the UPC church I currently attend includes beards in its dress code for ministry/platform. It's a relatively small church (approx 70 or so) and there are a few men who attend who grow either a full beard or mustache. I asked him about it when I first began attending and was told he doesn't believe it to be a sin, only a preference for those in ministry.


You're not understanding what I posted. The context was in regards to a Pastor adopting a dress code for ministry/platform. Don't try to twist this into something else.


Wrong. You're twisting what I posted and taking it completely out of context.


First, I'm surprised that you would be interested in attending an institutional church at all, what with your previous posts against them. Second, how a person responds shows the condition of their heart. So when a man will shave without a word for the dress code of a secular business, but whine and throw a tantrum over a dress code for ministry in a local church - it shows a lot.


As stated above, I agree that any minister who claims growing a beard is a sin is wrong. I do not believe it is the same as false doctrine, by simple definition.


Back to context. This is regarding dress code for men who wish to be involved in the ministry/platform. If the church I attended had a dress code stating I had to wear a tinfoil hat and purple polka dot suit to be used in the ministry/platform, I would find another church in which to minister.

See how easy that is?


Modesty isn't only about a dress code.


That's untrue.


Which seems odd to me, considering the previous posts made against institutional churches.





Modesty isn't only about dress.

What I have seen used for ministry/platform guidelines includes more than just dress, so perhaps my calling it a dress code is confusing you.



Very cool posts :thumbsup

Anymore questions concerning this thread should be directed to these postings by ndavid.

:highfive

[derAlte]

I'd worry more about attending charismatic house churches, or Trinitarian churches, or sitting at home in isolation and becoming whacked out.

I got a kick on how you worded this, Sister. In all seriousness, what do you actually mean by "whacked out?" It can mean all sorts of things in my part of the country.

[Michael The Disciple]

Very cool posts :thumbsup

Anymore questions concerning this thread should be directed to these postings by ndavid.

:highfive

Dom, You must have missed my posts where I asked your Church's policy on beards. Is there one? Does anyone there have a beard? I wont ask again.

[Amanah]

I got a kick on how you worded this, Sister. In all seriousness, what do you actually mean by "whacked out?" It can mean all sorts of things in my part of the country.

I meant that people can stray into heresy without input from the church family and the ministry.

[Amanah]

I didn't mean all UPC churches some haven't compromised but I've seen some that are like clubs on videos and stuff. Because all that stuff is to set a mood and draw a crowd. That's a huge thing that's why my church split from the UPC because a lot of that movement has gone that way. Many churches compromised standards and even Acts 2:38. All I was saying you can find a church that is compromising just trying to draw a crowd if you look is all. Didn't mean any disrespect to those attending UPC churches.

thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

God has used clean shaved and bearded men. That's good enough for me.

[houston]

Dom, You must have missed my posts where I asked your Church's policy on beards. Is there one? Does anyone there have a beard? I wont ask again.

It’s Dino... not Dom.

[Michael The Disciple]

It’s Dino... not Dom.

Dom knows who he is. Are you Dino?

[Evang.Benincasa]

It’s Dino... not Dom.

Most people call me Dom, its ok by me.

[houston]

I’m bored. Doesn’t help that I haven’t been able to sleep. Up 24 hours so far.

[Tithesmeister]

I appreciate this post, thank you.

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

Brother, I jumped to the conclusion that he, as you wrote above referred to the pastor, and not the board, which would be considered a they or an it.

This was regarding guidelines set for those who wish to be involved in a church ministry or on the platform. This isn't about a doctrine being preached. This is simply about guidelines and preferences for dress, appearance and conduct for those who desire to be used in ministry/platform. These may include things which are not sin and as such do not have chapter and verse, but are the preference of the church leadership. I have served on the church board/Pastoral counsel of two churches, so this may not be indicative of how things are done elsewhere -- in those churches, these guidelines were set by the church board.

Brother, if this is supposed to alleviate confusion, I honestly believe it fell a bit short. If you would be so kind as to re-read yours and my posts, I believe you will understand why I took it the way I did. I can't, in good conscience offer a sincere apology for taking your comments at face value.

Your response at the end included: "Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes."

That is simply untrue and takes out of context my statement.The comment above was actually an edit of my original post, when it occurred to me that you (apparently) did not believe that your pastor was under any obligation to support his doctrine (teaching) with scripture.

I'm not wanting to be argumentative here, but I'm still unconvinced that you did not, in fact, say what you meant. I do however want to give every benefit of the doubt that you are being truthful. Doctrine and teaching are the same thing. Guidelines appear to me to be awfully close to the same thing as doctrine. Let's just move on?

God bless you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’m bored. Doesn’t help that I haven’t been able to sleep. Up 24 hours so far.

Drink camomile tea, and go to sleep.

[houston]

Drink camomile tea, and go to sleep.

I took 4 Advil PM tablets and 2 lisinopril. Nothing. I feel like a zombie. And I need to drive up to houston tonight.

[Michael The Disciple]

Nobody here against beards ever heard them preached as sin. :heeheehee

Thats a riot aint it!:thumbsup

Just think. Men with no sin in their life are not respectable enuff to step on the HOLY PLATFORM!

The Heavenly Father, The Lord Jesus Christ would not be permitted to address the most holy saints in an Apostolic Church!

[Tithesmeister]

Thats a riot aint it!:thumbsup

Just think. Men with no sin in their life are not respectable enuff to step on the HOLY PLATFORM!

The Heavenly Father, The Lord Jesus Christ would not be permitted to address the most holy saints in an Apostolic Church!

Now that is a profound thought.

[jediwill83]

we will have to defer to the Elders.

That's not what the Bereans did....

[Evang.Benincasa]

I took 4 Advil PM tablets and 2 lisinopril. Nothing. I feel like a zombie. And I need to drive up to houston tonight.


Get off the internet and get some rest.
Sleep is more important, the light from the flat screen can mess you up.
Please get some rest.

[houston]

Thats riot aint it!:thumbsup

Facial hair is a source of pride and pride is a sin.

And

Rebellion against the mog is a sin.

Heard it under those 2 accusations.

One time I asked one of the ministers at the church why facial hair was prohibited. Mind you, I shaved immediately when told that my mustache was pride and pride is a sin. No questions asked. Some time passed and I realized there was nothing scriptural about the rule. So I asked...

The answer given was that I had been around long enough to know better.
I asked again, and I was given the same response.

[houston]

Get off the internet and get some rest.
Sleep is more important, the light from the flat screen can mess you up.
Please get some rest.

Ok ok bye

[Tithesmeister]

Facial hair is a source of pride and pride is a sin.

And

Rebellion against the mog is a sin.

Heard it under those 2 accusations.

One time I asked one of the ministers at the church why facial hair was prohibited. Mind you, I shaved immediately when told that my mustache was pride and pride is a sin. No questions asked. Some time passed and I realized there was nothing scriptural about the rule. So I asked...

The answer given was that I had been around long enough to know better.
I asked again, and I was given the same response.

At least he was consistent!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Nobody here against beards ever heard them preached as sin. :heeheehee

Sorry can't help you there. But I was told flat out by Steve Winter that if you didn't have a beard you were effeminate.

[Tithesmeister]

Sorry can't help you there. But I was told flat out by Steve Winter that if you didn't have a beard you were effeminate.


I have noticed that it seems to swing from one extreme to the other. I quoted a scripture once about not rounding the corners of the beard and the other person in the debate said "Well then you shouldn't round the corners of YOUR beard". Just like that from one extreme to the other!

[n david]

The comment above was actually an edit of my original post, when it occurred to me that you (apparently) did not believe that your pastor was under any obligation to support his doctrine (teaching) with scripture.

I'm not wanting to be argumentative here, but I'm still unconvinced that you did not, in fact, say what you meant. I do however want to give every benefit of the doubt that you are being truthful. Doctrine and teaching are the same thing. Guidelines appear to me to be awfully close to the same thing as doctrine. Let's just move on?

God bless you.

Whether the board or the Pastor wrote the guidelines doesn't change that it's the guidelines meant for a person wanting to become involved in ministry or serve on the platform. This isn't about anything being preached/taught. This is solely about ministry/platform guidelines, which cover various parts of dress, appearance and conduct.

[n david]

Sorry can't help you there. But I was told flat out by Steve Winter that if you didn't have a beard you were effeminate.

Men who are being forced to shave to join, be a part of, participate, minister, or lead in a church, aren't fully men at all.

:hmmm

[Aquila]

Here's something to make you happy: If a minister claims that growing a beard is a sin, that is wrong. It's not scriptural.

Thank you! lol That's really all I wanted to know.

The original question you ask is whether it is false doctrine. What is false doctrine? First, define what is doctrine. Doctrine is a set of beliefs or teachings based on the Word of God. So false doctrine would be something which is contrary to the beliefs and teaching of the Word of God.

For example: it is biblical doctrine that a person must be born again. False doctrine would then be claiming that you don't need to be born again.

For there to be a claim of false doctrine, there must be a doctrine to begin with. There is no early church doctrine on beards that I have found. So I would answer that it is not false doctrine, but would agree that any minister who claims beards are a sin would be in error.

A doctrine is a teaching. There is biblical doctrine. There are also doctrines of men and doctrines of devils. A teaching stating that a beard is a sin that could cause one to lose their soul is clearly a false teaching, i.e., false doctrine.

Again, the churches I've visited/attended included beards in the dress code for ministry/platform. Most of those churches had men in attendance who wore beards. The Pastor of the UPC church I currently attend includes beards in its dress code for ministry/platform. It's a relatively small church (approx 70 or so) and there are a few men who attend who grow either a full beard or mustache. I asked him about it when I first began attending and was told he doesn't believe it to be a sin, only a preference for those in ministry.

I'm not "against" having a platform policy. Especially with regards to attire. But I do ask myself, why must there be two standards regarding beards? You admitted it yourself, there was never a set teaching about beards in Scripture. Why impose such a teaching at all? Essentially the pastor's platform policy would rule out ever allowing Jesus, Paul, Peter, and perhaps the other Apostles from being able to teach on the platform of your church. If the Word of God doesn't set any kind of precedent for drawing distinction between those who wear beards and those who don't, why would a pastor?

I'm suspecting that it has something to do with the norms and position of the organization. It's politics. If someone walks into the church, the platform better toe the line of the organization, else the pastor could be called on it. It's institutional pressure from men to conform to an outdated model frozen in time. Now, this could be good or bad. But it does show the power of an institution.

Also, as a bearded individual, it makes it sound like at best, your church is embarrassed to have us. As long as we don't wish to be on the platform, we're tolerated. It makes me a bit uncomfortable.

You're not understanding what I posted. The context was in regards to a Pastor adopting a dress code for ministry/platform. Don't try to twist this into something else.

A pastoral "dress code" (regarding attire) is biblical as long as it is grounded in the biblical principle of modesty. I don't believe beards should be included in "dress codes". Because I can't take off my beard and put it immediately back on. It isn't attire. It is a part of my body.

Shouldn't everything a pastor does be based on sound "biblical" principles and not his own wishes or the arbitrary opinions of man?

Wrong. You're twisting what I posted and taking it completely out of context.

Well, it certainly looked like you said that no Scriptural foundation was necessary for a pastor to impose a dress code. I mean, wouldn't that mean a pastor could command tinfoil hats, and you'd believe we have to obey it?

First, I'm surprised that you would be interested in attending an institutional church at all, what with your previous posts against them.

I've had to distance myself from the house church I was attending. They are not Apostolic and though they showed interest in the truth for a time, that time has passed. So, I'm looking around at local churches.

Second, how a person responds shows the condition of their heart. So when a man will shave without a word for the dress code of a secular business, but whine and throw a tantrum over a dress code for ministry in a local church - it shows a lot.

Big difference. A pastor has a sacred trust. His standards, beliefs, and teachings are expected to be grounded in Scripture. Now, I don't expect my chief to abide by Scripture. He's not a Christian, and our department isn't "Christian". It's secular. He can arbitrarily make any standard he chooses. But like I said, he doesn't have a sacred trust. The pastor does. We expect pastors to teach and require things grounded in Scripture, should we not?

As stated above, I agree that any minister who claims growing a beard is a sin is wrong. I do not believe it is the same as false doctrine, by simple definition.

I understand your reasoning. But I see doctrine as teaching. It can come from the Bible, men, tradition, and even devils. A teaching that isn't grounded on Scripture, that imposes a Scriptural punishment (like Hell) is definitely a "false doctrine".

Back to context. This is regarding dress code for men who wish to be involved in the ministry/platform. If the church I attended had a dress code stating I had to wear a tinfoil hat and purple polka dot suit to be used in the ministry/platform, I would find another church in which to minister.

See how easy that is?

It is easy. However, it's also troubling. Few Apostolic churches within my community and the surrounding area would welcome me, and none would allow me to sing in the choir (perhaps this is a positive), all because of my beard.

Modesty isn't only about a dress code.

True. I'm just focusing on modesty because it is a biblical practice with biblical principles.


That's untrue.

What if it is true, and you honestly don't realize it yet?


Which seems odd to me, considering the previous posts made against institutional churches.

I don't like institutional churches. But, I'd like to find someplace to attend.

[Aquila]

Modesty isn't only about dress.

What I have seen used for ministry/platform guidelines includes more than just dress, so perhaps my calling it a dress code is confusing you.

In my 29 years in Pentecost "dress codes" typically focused primarily on attire. I don't see beards as attire. Because I can't just take it off and put it on at will. Also, it isn't an accessory or article of clothing, it is a part of my body.

[Aquila]

I didn't mean all UPC churches some haven't compromised but I've seen some that are like clubs on videos and stuff. Because all that stuff is to set a mood and draw a crowd. That's a huge thing that's why my church split from the UPC because a lot of that movement has gone that way. Many churches compromised standards and even Acts 2:38. All I was saying you can find a church that is compromising just trying to draw a crowd if you look is all. Didn't mean any disrespect to those attending UPC churches.

Well, they need the money for those buildings, salaries, etc. lol

[Aquila]

I appreciate this post, thank you.

"In fact, and you're really not going to like this, he doesn't have to have scripture and verse to do so. Period. End of story."

This was regarding guidelines set for those who wish to be involved in a church ministry or on the platform. This isn't about a doctrine being preached. This is simply about guidelines and preferences for dress, appearance and conduct for those who desire to be used in ministry/platform. These may include things which are not sin and as such do not have chapter and verse, but are the preference of the church leadership. I have served on the church board/Pastoral counsel of two churches, so this may not be indicative of how things are done elsewhere -- in those churches, these guidelines were set by the church board.

Your response at the end included: "Oh . . . I forgot . . . You don't need to quote scripture. Just because . . . I guess anything goes."

That is simply untrue and takes out of context my statement.

If the men set the guidelines... why couldn't anything go? I know a church that doesn't allow women to wear colored pantyhose, especially on the platform. I know another that doesn't allow women to wear nude pantyhose, especially on the platform. Some restrict T-shirts on men, requiring 3/4 length shirts at the shortest. All that I know forbid shorts on men, even if they cover the knee like most women's skirts and dresses. It's a bit crazy when you think of all the silly arbitrary standards that aren't required in Scripture at all.

[Aquila]

I've been around a few decades and have heard all sorts of reasons why a man should not have a beard...i.e. that male facial hair is actually male makeup, that one is identifying oneself with liberal clergyman, or the hippy movement, etc. In my judgment (that and 5 cents will get you a cup of coffee at Wall Drug in South Dakota) it is simply not intellectually honest to proclaim male facial hair a sin. There isn't a lick of scripture against it. The clincher for me is the fact that the Lord Jesus himself, whom we sing that we want to be like, had a beard. End of story. He is the ultimate arbiter of what is sin and what is not. If He did it, it must not be wrong.

Do I have a beard? No. I don't like having a bushy face. I don't think my Friend cares that I stay clean shaven. I don't condemn anyone who has facial hair. If someone grows a beard just rile up those in authority, it isn't the hair that's the problem, its the heart. We live in a world full of cantankerous and ornery people who would grow a beard just to get a rise. I'm not sure being right on facial hair and out of unity with the body is worth it.

We have ministers in our UPCI district that have facial hair and they are accepted by most who have realized that God is not about to write "Ichabod" over the life of a guy just because he has some hair on his face.

I heard that a preacher in another state sent his son out to start a branch work. The son, after pastoring this branch work for awhile decided to grow a beard. As far as I know, the son still pastors the branch work but when he returns to his dad's church, he is only allowed to run the sound booth because of his beard. This sounds awfully silly to me. I'm not sure the son's attitude was right by growing it but it seems strange that he can pastor out in the field but his ministry is not acknowledged in the home church because of some hair on his face.

It is silly. It's obvious to me that men with beards are subpar in their eyes.

[Aquila]

God has used clean shaved and bearded men. That's good enough for me.

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

I took 4 Advil PM tablets and 2 lisinopril. Nothing. I feel like a zombie. And I need to drive up to houston tonight.

I assume something is on your mind? If you need to vent, feel free to PM me. Let it rip. No judgments from me, I promise.

Try to stay away from that artificial medical mess. Stick as much as possible to all natural herbs that God has given us. Drink some chamomile tea like EB advised. Turn off all electronics. They stimulate your occipital nerve and tend to keep you in an awakened state.

Have a moment of tea and relax. Lay down in a darkened room with shades drawn, no electronic screens going. Close your eyes and pray. Begin praying for everyone you know. Begin praying for your family. Begin praising God for His goodness and worship silently in your heart. When I do these things, I bring peace to my inner man, my soul, and my body.

I'll keep you in prayer my brother.

[Aquila]

Thats a riot aint it!:thumbsup

Just think. Men with no sin in their life are not respectable enuff to step on the HOLY PLATFORM!

The Heavenly Father, The Lord Jesus Christ would not be permitted to address the most holy saints in an Apostolic Church!

Ouch. :lol

[Aquila]

Sorry can't help you there. But I was told flat out by Steve Winter that if you didn't have a beard you were effeminate.

That's an extreme in the opposite direction. I think I might have said such tongue in cheek. But honestly, I don't believe being clean shaven is a problem in any way shape or form.

Unless... one has pride in their jaw line. Then it's a sin. They should be required to grow a beard. :p

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://i.imgur.com/lP1aw.jpg

[Michael The Disciple]

Sorry can't help you there. But I was told flat out by Steve Winter that if you didn't have a beard you were effeminate.

One out of a thousand Apostolics.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

hyperbole

men come to FPC with beards and feel accepted and loved.

but the platform standards are to be shaven.

This is not always the case for all Pentecostal churches though. There are sections where the churches are united, dead-set against beards on men.

[n david]

If the men set the guidelines... why couldn't anything go? I know a church that doesn't allow women to wear colored pantyhose, especially on the platform. I know another that doesn't allow women to wear nude pantyhose, especially on the platform. Some restrict T-shirts on men, requiring 3/4 length shirts at the shortest. All that I know forbid shorts on men, even if they cover the knee like most women's skirts and dresses. It's a bit crazy when you think of all the silly arbitrary standards that aren't required in Scripture at all.
If a church board or Pastor wanted to set ministry/platform guidelines stating rings were disallowed, only long-sleeved white shirts were permitted under a suit jacket, that is their choice to do so. They aren't required to show chapter and verse. It's their preference, their guideline. Those who don't like it can either not join that church ministry or go somewhere else.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Evang.Benincasa]

One out of a thousand Apostolics.

Well, my man, I have had more than one A Po Stolic tell me how a beard was a determination of manhood. I guess the one has friends. :)

[Aquila]

If a church board or Pastor wanted to set ministry/platform guidelines stating rings were disallowed, only long-sleeved white shirts were permitted under a suit jacket, that is their choice to do so. They aren't required to show chapter and verse. It's their preference, their guideline. Those who don't like it can either not join that church ministry or go somewhere else.

What's so hard to understand about this?

I guess I can understand it.

It's just it makes some of us with beards feel like 2nd class citizens in the church over something that isn't even an issue in the Scriptures. That's all really.

[jediwill83]

Facial Hair=Pride

Refusing to admit you were wrong to preach a doctrine unsupported by scripture=pride?

Almost sounds like a parent refusing to admit they we're wrong when they seriously overstepped and are afraid that if they admit fallibility the reaction of the child will be to question everything and never obey so they just dig in their heels and double down.

You create this chaotic cognitive dissonance.

It's funny...the Pope was just quoted as saying that,"His word supercedes the Bible" when confronted about differences in scripture and Catholic doctrine...but I guess that's ok if we do that huh?

This isn't even a matter of "twisting" scripture...there is literally no scripture to twist.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Facial Hair=Pride

Refusing to admit you were wrong to preach a doctrine unsupported by scripture=pride?

Almost sounds like a parent refusing to admit they we're wrong when they seriously overstepped and are afraid that if they admit fallibility the reaction of the child will be to question everything and never obey so they just dig in their heels and double down.

You create this chaotic cognitive dissonance.

It's funny...the Pope was just quoted as saying that,"His word supercedes the Bible" when confronted about differences in scripture and Catholic doctrine...but I guess that's ok if we do that huh?

This isn't even a matter of "twisting" scripture...there is literally no scripture to twist.

No Facial Hair=effeminacy

Had a old brother in Labelle Florida explain to me without mincing his words about not having a beard. That you needed whiskers to get baptized in Jesus name. He also believed that the beard should never be cut, or trimmed. No he wasn't a Rasta. Any how, he pointed to Psalm 133:2 to show that having a beard meant you were anointed as a priest under Jesus name. 2 Samuel 10:4 was used to prove that a man without a beard was a shame, like a man having long uncut hair, or walking around with your pants down.

[Esaias]

No Facial Hair=effeminacy

Had a old brother in Labelle Florida explain to me without mincing his words about not having a beard. That you needed whiskers to get baptized in Jesus name. He also believed that the beard should never be cut, or trimmed. No he wasn't a Rasta. Any how, he pointed to Psalm 133:2 to show that having a beard meant you were anointed as a priest under Jesus name. 2 Samuel 10:4 was used to prove that a man without a beard was a shame, like a man having long uncut hair, or walking around with your pants down.

I wouldn't say you need whiskers to get baptised.

:heeheehee

[n david]

.
Obviously we see the ministry/platform guidelines differently. You appear to see them as doctrine - something taught or preached from the pulpit. That isn't my experience.

I'll share an example of my most recent experience as a member of the pastoral advisory board and worship leader:

(I don't have a copy of the guidelines we created and may have forgotten some points...)

This experience is from a church which was not UPC, but was Apostolic, just not affiliated with any organization. The Pastor of this church had previously been licensed - first with the Apostolic Assembly, and, just prior to starting this church, the UPCI. His experience with both organizations led him to decide he didn't want to be affiliated with either.

When the church first began, we had musicians in ripped jeans and even a drummer who came one Sunday in Bermuda shorts and flip flops. It was after this we decided to institute guidelines/expectations for those involved in ministry/platform.

So now Jim Billybob Johnson wants to play the guitar. As someone who will be representing the church, we created set of guidelines which included dress, appearance and conduct.

The first part was primarily background information about salvation, previous church involvement, etc.

The second part included guidelines about dress and appearance. Like it or not, we didn't want Jim Billybob Johnson to show up with ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops.

Could we point to a chapter and verse? No. Is it a sin to wear flip flops? I hope not! Though I've worn them less as I've grown older. Nor is it a sin to wear shorts, IMO.

The guidelines also said Jim Billybob was to keep his hair short and not bleached, or in some wild style (mohawk, faux-hawk, etc.).

Again, can't really point to a chapter or verse other than "it's a shame for a man to have long hair." Nothing specific about styling the hair or dying it.

It also stated JB Johnson was to be either clean shaven or keep his beard/mustache trimmed and neat.

It stated he was to wear business casual clothing, a suit and tie was not required for the musicians. Men were required to wear dress slacks with a collared shirt - either a dress polo or buttoned shirt. Women were required to wear a dress/skirt of appropriate length, not to be above the knee when seated, including a slit. The women's blouse/shirt should have a modest neckline and sleeve length.

No chapter and verse.

JB Johnson was not allowed to wear jewelry, such as a necklace or bracelet or ring other than a wedding ring.

No chapter and verse.

Besides the dress and appearance, the third part included guidelines of conduct.

Obviously, we expected Jim Billybob Johnson to conduct himself as a Christian should. We expected Jim Billybob Johnson to have daily prayer and devotion. In fact, as a worship team we all had a Bible devotion/reading plan we followed together. The guideline also set an expectation that JB Johnson would choose one day a week to fast and set aside extra time in the day to pray.

No chapter and verse.

Again, I may have missed some details, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

This was to be signed by Jim Billybob Johnson and both myself and the Pastor would approve it. We asked that JB Johnson and anyone else in ministry commit to a period of at least six months, after which they would sign a new guideline/commitment form.

[Esaias]

Obviously we see the ministry/platform guidelines differently. You appear to see them as doctrine - something taught or preached from the pulpit. That isn't my experience.

I'll share an example of my most recent experience as a member of the pastoral advisory board and worship leader:

(I don't have a copy of the guidelines we created and may have forgotten some points...)

This experience is from a church which was not UPC, but was Apostolic, just not affiliated with any organization. The Pastor of this church had previously been licensed - first with the Apostolic Assembly, and, just prior to starting this church, the UPCI. His experience with both organizations led him to decide he didn't want to be affiliated with either.

When the church first began, we had musicians in ripped jeans and even a drummer who came one Sunday in Bermuda shorts and flip flops. It was after this we decided to institute guidelines/expectations for those involved in ministry/platform.

So now Jim Billybob Johnson wants to play the guitar. As someone who will be representing the church, we created set of guidelines which included dress, appearance and conduct.

The first part was primarily background information about salvation, previous church involvement, etc.

The second part included guidelines about dress and appearance. Like it or not, we didn't want Jim Billybob Johnson to show up with ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops.

Could we point to a chapter and verse? No. Is it a sin to wear flip flops? I hope not! Though I've worn them less as I've grown older. Nor is it a sin to wear shorts, IMO.

The guidelines also said Jim Billybob was to keep his hair short and not bleached, or in some wild style (mohawk, faux-hawk, etc.).

Again, can't really point to a chapter or verse other than "it's a shame for a man to have long hair." Nothing specific about styling the hair or dying it.

It also stated JB Johnson was to be either clean shaven or keep his beard/mustache trimmed and neat.

It stated he was to wear business casual clothing, a suit and tie was not required for the musicians. Men were required to wear dress slacks with a collared shirt - either a dress polo or buttoned shirt. Women were required to wear a dress/skirt of appropriate length, not to be above the knee when seated, including a slit. The women's blouse/shirt should have a modest neckline and sleeve length.

No chapter and verse.

JB Johnson was not allowed to wear jewelry, such as a necklace or bracelet or ring other than a wedding ring.

No chapter and verse.

Besides the dress and appearance, the third part included guidelines of conduct.

Obviously, we expected Jim Billybob Johnson to conduct himself as a Christian should. We expected Jim Billybob Johnson to have daily prayer and devotion. In fact, as a worship team we all had a Bible devotion/reading plan we followed together. The guideline also set an expectation that JB Johnson would choose one day a week to fast and set aside extra time in the day to pray.

No chapter and verse.

Again, I may have missed some details, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

This was to be signed by Jim Billybob Johnson and both myself and the Pastor would approve it. We asked that JB Johnson and anyone else in ministry commit to a period of at least six months, after which they would sign a new guideline/commitment form.

Oh, the humanity!

:happydance

[Evang.Benincasa]

I wouldn't say you need whiskers to get baptised.

:heeheehee

Thanks :)

[n david]

or walking around with your pants down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMwhl4IrPNc&feature=youtu.be&t=33s

[Aquila]

Obviously we see the ministry/platform guidelines differently. You appear to see them as doctrine - something taught or preached from the pulpit. That isn't my experience.

I'll share an example of my most recent experience as a member of the pastoral advisory board and worship leader:

(I don't have a copy of the guidelines we created and may have forgotten some points...)

This experience is from a church which was not UPC, but was Apostolic, just not affiliated with any organization. The Pastor of this church had previously been licensed - first with the Apostolic Assembly, and, just prior to starting this church, the UPCI. His experience with both organizations led him to decide he didn't want to be affiliated with either.

When the church first began, we had musicians in ripped jeans and even a drummer who came one Sunday in Bermuda shorts and flip flops. It was after this we decided to institute guidelines/expectations for those involved in ministry/platform.

So now Jim Billybob Johnson wants to play the guitar. As someone who will be representing the church, we created set of guidelines which included dress, appearance and conduct.

The first part was primarily background information about salvation, previous church involvement, etc.

The second part included guidelines about dress and appearance. Like it or not, we didn't want Jim Billybob Johnson to show up with ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops.

Could we point to a chapter and verse? No. Is it a sin to wear flip flops? I hope not! Though I've worn them less as I've grown older. Nor is it a sin to wear shorts, IMO.

The guidelines also said Jim Billybob was to keep his hair short and not bleached, or in some wild style (mohawk, faux-hawk, etc.).

Again, can't really point to a chapter or verse other than "it's a shame for a man to have long hair." Nothing specific about styling the hair or dying it.

It also stated JB Johnson was to be either clean shaven or keep his beard/mustache trimmed and neat.

It stated he was to wear business casual clothing, a suit and tie was not required for the musicians. Men were required to wear dress slacks with a collared shirt - either a dress polo or buttoned shirt. Women were required to wear a dress/skirt of appropriate length, not to be above the knee when seated, including a slit. The women's blouse/shirt should have a modest neckline and sleeve length.

No chapter and verse.

JB Johnson was not allowed to wear jewelry, such as a necklace or bracelet or ring other than a wedding ring.

No chapter and verse.

Besides the dress and appearance, the third part included guidelines of conduct.

Obviously, we expected Jim Billybob Johnson to conduct himself as a Christian should. We expected Jim Billybob Johnson to have daily prayer and devotion. In fact, as a worship team we all had a Bible devotion/reading plan we followed together. The guideline also set an expectation that JB Johnson would choose one day a week to fast and set aside extra time in the day to pray.

No chapter and verse.

Again, I may have missed some details, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

This was to be signed by Jim Billybob Johnson and both myself and the Pastor would approve it. We asked that JB Johnson and anyone else in ministry commit to a period of at least six months, after which they would sign a new guideline/commitment form.

I'm not against platform guidelines. If you're in an institutional church, you might need them.

I've been house churching now for between 6 or seven years. We met in common clothes and never even had issue with facial hair. So, the entire platform performance dynamic didn't exist. We would pray, sing, pray more, sing. We'd share a meal, pass the bread and the cup. The elder would share a passage, some insight, and we'd discuss it. We'd confess sin and pray for one another. Often fellowship extended long after midnight, with kids crashed on couches and in the floor.

Anyone could bring a passage, insight, song, or poem. In Scott's house church, sometimes tongues and interpretation was present. Sometimes word of knowledge or word of wisdom. Sometimes we felt a healing anointing, and sought God for healing. We shared visions, dreams, and impressions we received from God. We talked about life, work, and people we were trying to reach.

The Sunday show is just not how I see church.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm not against platform guidelines. If you're in an institutional church, you might need them.

I've been house churching now for between 6 or seven years. We met in common clothes and never even had issue with facial hair. So, the entire platform performance dynamic didn't exist. We would pray, sing, pray more, sing. We'd share a meal, pass the bread and the cup. The elder would share a passage, some insight, and we'd discuss it. We'd confess sin and pray for one another. Often fellowship extended long after midnight, with kids crashed on couches and in the floor.

Anyone could bring a passage, insight, song, or poem. In Scott's house church, sometimes tongues and interpretation was present. Sometimes word of knowledge or word of wisdom. Sometimes we felt a healing anointing, and sought God for healing. We shared visions, dreams, and impressions we received from God. We talked about life, work, and people we were trying to reach.

The Sunday show is just not how I see church.

That sounds like group. :lol

[Aquila]

That sounds like group. :lol

Lol

We had good group. Lol

[FlamingZword]

If a church board or Pastor wanted to set ministry/platform guidelines stating rings were disallowed, only long-sleeved white shirts were permitted under a suit jacket, that is their choice to do so. They aren't required to show chapter and verse. It's their preference, their guideline. Those who don't like it can either not join that church ministry or go somewhere else.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Yes they have a right to do that, but what is hard to understand about that is that they condemn those who do not follow their rules as lost without hope.

They are elevating their rules as equal to the word of God, and that is a much worse sin than any beard or rings. That is precisely the sin of the Pharisees, in that they equated their man made commandments as equal to the word of God. And Jesus condemned the Pharisees for that.

[Tithesmeister]

Yes they have a right to do that, but what is hard to understand about that is that they condemn those who do not follow their rules as lost without hope.

They are elevating their rules as equal to the word of God, and that is a much worse sin than any beard or rings. That is precisely the sin of the Pharisees, in that they equated their man made commandments as equal to the word of God. And Jesus condemned the Pharisees for that.

Amen

[Tithesmeister]

Obviously we see the ministry/platform guidelines differently. You appear to see them as doctrine - something taught or preached from the pulpit. That isn't my experience.

I'll share an example of my most recent experience as a member of the pastoral advisory board and worship leader:

(I don't have a copy of the guidelines we created and may have forgotten some points...)

This experience is from a church which was not UPC, but was Apostolic, just not affiliated with any organization. The Pastor of this church had previously been licensed - first with the Apostolic Assembly, and, just prior to starting this church, the UPCI. His experience with both organizations led him to decide he didn't want to be affiliated with either.

When the church first began, we had musicians in ripped jeans and even a drummer who came one Sunday in Bermuda shorts and flip flops. It was after this we decided to institute guidelines/expectations for those involved in ministry/platform.

So now Jim Billybob Johnson wants to play the guitar. As someone who will be representing the church, we created set of guidelines which included dress, appearance and conduct.

The first part was primarily background information about salvation, previous church involvement, etc.

The second part included guidelines about dress and appearance. Like it or not, we didn't want Jim Billybob Johnson to show up with ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops.

Could we point to a chapter and verse? No. Is it a sin to wear flip flops? I hope not! Though I've worn them less as I've grown older. Nor is it a sin to wear shorts, IMO.

The guidelines also said Jim Billybob was to keep his hair short and not bleached, or in some wild style (mohawk, faux-hawk, etc.).

Again, can't really point to a chapter or verse other than "it's a shame for a man to have long hair." Nothing specific about styling the hair or dying it.

It also stated JB Johnson was to be either clean shaven or keep his beard/mustache trimmed and neat.

It stated he was to wear business casual clothing, a suit and tie was not required for the musicians. Men were required to wear dress slacks with a collared shirt - either a dress polo or buttoned shirt. Women were required to wear a dress/skirt of appropriate length, not to be above the knee when seated, including a slit. The women's blouse/shirt should have a modest neckline and sleeve length.

No chapter and verse.

JB Johnson was not allowed to wear jewelry, such as a necklace or bracelet or ring other than a wedding ring.

No chapter and verse.

Besides the dress and appearance, the third part included guidelines of conduct.

Obviously, we expected Jim Billybob Johnson to conduct himself as a Christian should. We expected Jim Billybob Johnson to have daily prayer and devotion. In fact, as a worship team we all had a Bible devotion/reading plan we followed together. The guideline also set an expectation that JB Johnson would choose one day a week to fast and set aside extra time in the day to pray.

No chapter and verse.

Again, I may have missed some details, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

This was to be signed by Jim Billybob Johnson and both myself and the Pastor would approve it. We asked that JB Johnson and anyone else in ministry commit to a period of at least six months, after which they would sign a new guideline/commitment form.

Just curious. Give me your opinion of this passage in light of the post above.

Jas.2

[1] My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
[2] For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
[3] And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
[4] Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
[5] Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
[6] But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
[7] Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
[8] If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.

Take your time and break it down verse by verse. Please.

[FlamingZword]

This isn't even a matter of "twisting" scripture...there is literally no scripture to twist.

Ha ha ha, this is a great statement. :thumbsup

[FlamingZword]

OK let me explain something about the differences between the Army or a business requiring men to shave.

I understand perfectly the Army reason, since I was a soldier. we shaved our beard because we needed to wear gas masks that would protect us against a chemical or biological attack.

Now a business may require people to shave to hold employment because it is the regulations, but the business does not tell a person that if they do not shave they will be eternally lost. and really a business does not care if while you are in vacation you grow a beard like Aaron the priest.

The big difference is that many ministers condemn all men who have beards as being in sin, even if they do not belong to their church. to them anyone who does not shave is not saved and that is judging.

If beard was a sin, then it would be listed as a sin somewhere in the scriptures after all most men grow a beard, it is a natural occurrence for millennia, it would have quite easy for Moses or any of the prophets, Apostles or even Jesus to take a second and condemn beards in just one verse, but the fact that there is not one single verse that condemns beards is a clear indication that they never saw nothing wrong with them.

[Michael The Disciple]

OK let me explain something about the differences between the Army or a business requiring men to shave.

I understand perfectly the Army reason, since I was a soldier. we shaved our beard because we needed to wear gas masks that would protect us against a chemical or biological attack.

Now a business may require people to shave to hold employment because it is the regulations, but the business does not tell a person that if they do not shave they will be eternally lost. and really a business does not care if while you are in vacation you grow a beard like Aaron the priest.

The big difference is that many ministers condemn all men who have beards as being in sin, even if they do not belong to their church. to them anyone who does not shave is not saved and that is judging.

If beard was a sin, then it would be listed as a sin somewhere in the scriptures after all most men grow a beard, it is a natural occurrence for millennia, it would have quite easy for Moses or any of the prophets, Apostles or even Jesus to take a second and condemn beards in just one verse, but the fact that there is not one single verse that condemns beards is a clear indication that they never saw nothing wrong with them.

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!


Isn't fighting against God a sin? :lol

Let's watch the pendulum swing!


America is burning wreckage.

[votivesoul]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

CS Lewis wrote a wonderful book called The Screwtape Letters. I highly recommend it. In one particular chapter, Mr. Lewis details how one of the best ways to undermine a new believer's faith is to get them to disregard Jesus as He actually is, and instead come to believe in a pseudo-Jesus, of one's own making.

As long as that believer is fixed on following and worshipping the pseudo-Jesus of his or her own making, their faith will never really take off and eventually, they will end up falling on their face, and never understand the reason why. Their version of Jesus will fade from view and they'll never even realize their version of Jesus was a fake Jesus all along.

This is what man-made traditions and ideas do to the saints: they create false views of Who Jesus really is. To embrace such things at any level is to undermine true faith in the Lord. You (figuratively speaking) don't believe that? Fine, go your way and continue on in your convictions and may your faith in them make you whole.

But think for a moment what is at stake. We believe all scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine and etc., right? We believe that, right? We believe Paul, for example, was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his writings are eternally binding on all believers everywhere, right?

So, when Paul writes to the Corinthians and tells them "Not that we have dominion over your faith", we understand that not even Paul, the greatest apostle and evangelist in the history of Christianity, whose writings make up the bulk of the New Testament, could claim to be able to or have the right to, be a "lord" (check the Greek here) over someone else's faith. And that statement was "God-breathed" was it not? It's Holy Scripture, right?

And what does Simon Peter write about lording it over God's heritage? It's all derived from the same Greek word. What does Jesus say about how the gentiles exercise dominion or lordship over one another and think themselves benefactors of those whom they rule? It's all from the same Greek word/concept. He emphatically and unequivocally states "It shall not be so among you".

But here we are, not quite 2,000 years removed from those days and we're still coming out of Babylon, still entertaining catholic spirits of papist wickedness, giving in and allowing one another to exercise dominion over each other, and over the faith's of one another, in CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE SON OF GOD AND HIS APOSTLES, and we think ourselves benefactors for doing so, just like Gentiles who walk in the darkness of their minds.

You have only one Leader, and it's Christ Jesus:

Matthew 23:10 (NASB),

Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

Go and look at the word "leaders" above in the Greek. It is the correct way to translate καθηγηταί.

Paul, by the Spirit, told his audience to "acquit yourselves like men". What does that mean? How should men act like men? How do they maintain their masculinity, their "male-ness", if you will. What did the Lord through Paul want His men to be or do, to make sure that verse of Holy Scripture was obeyed?

Certainly it's not to let another man replace Christ as your head?, Or to allow someone else to replace you as your wife's head?

If you (figuratively speaking) cannot see how letting another man tell your wife what she can and cannot wear is emasculating, I suspect you (figuratively speaking), either are the one doing the emasculating of other men, or you don't mind being neutered by someone else.

What grows out of my face is my business, between my head Jesus and me, and if Jesus can't Himself give me a scripture for it one way or another (because none exist), then no one else can either. And so they don't. Realizing how faltering their position is, instead they go for the jugular a completely different way.

They call it rebellion and pride.

I call it a bunch of cr@p, or dung if you prefer a more Biblical term. It is impossible to rebel against an authority that does not exist. You cannot break a law that isn't actually a law. There is no violation of Holy Scripture occuring when there isn't any verse of Holy Scripture whatsoever on the matter.

And the idea that you can say, "well, chapter and verse don't have to exist" for the pastor or leaders to create a standard; it's just within his or their authority to do as elders and leaders, then you admit you "go by the Book" but something else, too.

And we wonder why the USA is circling the drain and national Christianity is falling away? We blame it on a lot of things, but the fact is, it's because God's not in it, that's why. No one can resist God. Who can contend with the Almighty? Would the state of our culture and society be where it's at today without God being the One to let it come to this?

Our Lord is not involved because we aren't just people of the Book. We are people of the Book, plus these other opinions and ideas. Those other opinions and ideas are what got Christ crucified, His apostles martyred, and the true church of the Living God split open nave to neck on a regular basis by the catholic nightmare.

But any dares try and draw a line in the sand somewhere in Pentecost and say "No! We aren't caving in on this one", and accusation of rebellion, heresy, hypocrisy all start to fly from the lips of the status quo who see nothing wrong with adding in a little leaven here and there, for the sake of some popish "platform" that never existed anywhere in the New Covenant Church.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

When Paul wrote about the kind of church Jesus is coming back for, what did he mean, or rather, what did the Spirit of Christ mean through Paul, when He/he wrote that she must be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, that she must be holy, without blemish?

To answer, imagine wearing a nice suit and tie or dress for a wedding or funeral. Ever find a little spot on that nice tie? Or realize too late your slacks are a bit wrinkled, but you don't have time to change them? Or that your dress is a bit blemished by discoloration from the sun, or something like that?

All these things we would call small and inconsequential. We'd like for them not to exist, but time being of the essence, we go to the wedding or funeral, realizing no one is actually going to care that much about a little stain here or there, a bit of a wrinkle or etc.

But guess what? Try going to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb with that attitude. You're going to be shown the door that leads to wailing and gnashing of teeth. I promise you, or what Paul wrote in Ephesians isn't actually binding on us and we can present ourselves as the Church to the Lord any old way we please.

What does God say in Malachi about when the priests offered him weak and sickly animals, ones that are blemished or damaged in some way? He says He would prefer that they not even open the doors of the temple! Why?

Because they mixed man-made ideas into how to serve God by becoming partial in the Law. I'm sorry if no one ever told you this, but God is going to recompense every man-made idea and human tradition tacked onto His People, particularly those who ought to know better because they are supposed to be more spiritually discerning and wise regarding the ways of the Lord, which is to say, the ministry.

And the answer to that fearsome truth is simply, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. To such a flippant response, I offer you Ezekiel 34.

[Esaias]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

CS Lewis wrote a wonderful book called The Screwtape Letters. I highly recommend it. In one particular chapter, Mr. Lewis details how one of the best ways to undermine a new believer's faith is to get them to disregard Jesus as He actually is, and instead come to believe in a pseudo-Jesus, of one's own making.

As long as that believer is fixed on following and worshipping the pseudo-Jesus of his or her own making, their faith will never really take off and eventually, they will end up falling on their face, and never understand the reason why. Their version of Jesus will fade from view and they'll never even realize their version of Jesus was a fake Jesus all along.

This is what man-made traditions and ideas do to the saints: they create false views of Who Jesus really is. To embrace such things at any level is to undermine true faith in the Lord. You (figuratively speaking) don't believe that? Fine, go your way and continue on in your convictions and may your faith in them make you whole.

But think for a moment what is at stake. We believe all scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine and etc., right? We believe that, right? We believe Paul, for example, was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his writings are eternally binding on all believers everywhere, right?

So, when Paul writes to the Corinthians and tells them "Not that we have dominion over your faith", we understand that not even Paul, the greatest apostle and evangelist in the history of Christianity, whose writings make up the bulk of the New Testament, could claim to be able to or have the right to, be a "lord" (check the Greek here) over someone else's faith. And that statement was "God-breathed" was it not? It's Holy Scripture, right?

And what does Simon Peter write about lording it over God's heritage? It's all derived from the same Greek word. What does Jesus say about how the gentiles exercise dominion or lordship over one another and think themselves benefactors of those whom they rule? It's all from the same Greek word/concept. He emphatically and unequivocally states "It shall not be so among you".

But here we are, not quite 2,000 years removed from those days and we're still coming out of Babylon, still entertaining catholic spirits of papist wickedness, giving in and allowing one another to exercise dominion over each other, and over the faith's of one another, in CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE SON OF GOD AND HIS APOSTLES, and we think ourselves benefactors for doing so, just like Gentiles who walk in the darkness of their minds.

You have only one Leader, and it's Christ Jesus:

Matthew 23:10 (NASB),

Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

Go and look at the word "leaders" above in the Greek. It is the correct way to translate καθηγηταί.

Paul, by the Spirit, told his audience to "acquit yourselves like men". What does that mean? How should men act like men? How do they maintain their masculinity, their "male-ness", if you will. What did the Lord through Paul want His men to be or do, to make sure that verse of Holy Scripture was obeyed?

Certainly it's not to let another man replace Christ as your head?, Or to allow someone else to replace you as your wife's head?

If you (figuratively speaking) cannot see how letting another man tell your wife what she can and cannot wear is emasculating, I suspect you (figuratively speaking), either are the one doing the emasculating of other men, or you don't mind being neutered by someone else.

What grows out of my face is my business, between my head Jesus and me, and if Jesus can't Himself give me a scripture for it one way or another (because none exist), then no one else can either. And so they don't. Realizing how faltering their position is, instead they go for the jugular a completely different way.

They call it rebellion and pride.

I call it a bunch of cr@p, or dung if you prefer a more Biblical term. It is impossible to rebel against an authority that does not exist. You cannot break a law that isn't actually a law. There is no violation of Holy Scripture occuring when there isn't any verse of Holy Scripture whatsoever on the matter.

And the idea that you can say, "well, chapter and verse don't have to exist" for the pastor or leaders to create a standard; it's just within his or their authority to do as elders and leaders, then you admit you "go by the Book" but something else, too.

And we wonder why the USA is circling the drain and national Christianity is falling away? We blame it on a lot of things, but the fact is, it's because God's not in it, that's why. No one can resist God. Who can contend with the Almighty? Would the state of our culture and society be where it's at today without God being the One to let it come to this?

Our Lord is not involved because we aren't just people of the Book. We are people of the Book, plus these other opinions and ideas. Those other opinions and ideas are what got Christ crucified, His apostles martyred, and the true church of the Living God split open nave to neck on a regular basis by the catholic nightmare.

But any dares try and draw a line in the sand somewhere in Pentecost and say "No! We aren't caving in on this one", and accusation of rebellion, heresy, hypocrisy all start to fly from the lips of the status quo who see nothing wrong with adding in a little leaven here and there, for the sake of some popish "platform" that never existed anywhere in the New Covenant Church.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

When Paul wrote about the kind of church Jesus is coming back for, what did he mean, or rather, what did the Spirit of Christ mean through Paul, when He/he wrote that she must be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, that she must be holy, without blemish?

To answer, imagine wearing a nice suit and tie or dress for a wedding or funeral. Ever find a little spot on that nice tie? Or realize too late your slacks are a bit wrinkled, but you don't have time to change them? Or that your dress is a bit blemished by discoloration from the sun, or something like that?

All these things we would call small and inconsequential. We'd like for them not to exist, but time being of the essence, we go to the wedding or funeral, realizing no one is actually going to care that much about a little stain here or there, a bit of a wrinkle or etc.

But guess what? Try going to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb with that attitude. You're going to be shown the door that leads to wailing and gnashing of teeth. I promise you, or what Paul wrote in Ephesians isn't actually binding on us and we can present ourselves as the Church to the Lord any old way we please.

What does God say in Malachi about when the priests offered him weak and sickly animals, ones that are blemished or damaged in some way? He says He would prefer that they not even open the doors of the temple! Why?

Because they mixed man-made ideas into how to serve God by becoming partial in the Law. I'm sorry if no one ever told you this, but God is going to recompense every man-made idea and human tradition tacked onto His People, particularly those who ought to know better because they are supposed to be more spiritually discerning and wise regarding the ways of the Lord, which is to say, the ministry.

And the answer to that fearsome truth is simply, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. To such a flippant response, I offer you Ezekiel 34.

While what you have written is generally true, there is another side to the subject.

And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
(Exodus 18:14-26)

And in the new testament Scripture:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
(Matthew 18:15-20)

And again:

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
(1 Corinthians 6:2-5)

There does seem to be some leeway given to the assembly to establish certain judgments. The issue of church discipline of erring members rests upon an authority given to the assembly. Of course, there is the possibility of error, as that same authority which was delegated to the judges and elders of Israel later on were morphed into the travesty known as Talmudic Pharisaism (the "traditions of the elders" which were notorious for contradicting the actual Word of God). And, the same authority given to the elders of the new covenant assembly over time was warped into the clerical "magisterium" which gave rise to the catholic movement (see 3 John 1:9-10).

So the local assembly needs to meet, and pray, and discuss these things, and get them ironed out.

[Michael The Disciple]

Winds of change. We are desperate.

[Esaias]

Winds of change. We are desperate.

Who is desperate?

[Amanah]

The forum is making me feel a bit queasy this morning, between Esaias' thread on the unreality of our society, to this thread calling for ecclesiastical anarchy.

[Michael The Disciple]

And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

The answer to this seems to be in plurality of Elders.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

There does seem to be some leeway given to the assembly to establish certain judgments. The issue of church discipline of erring members rests upon an authority given to the assembly. Of course, there is the possibility of error, as that same authority which was delegated to the judges and elders of Israel later on were morphed into the travesty known as Talmudic Pharisaism (the "traditions of the elders" which were notorious for contradicting the actual Word of God). And, the same authority given to the elders of the new covenant assembly over time was warped into the clerical "magisterium" which gave rise to the catholic movement (see 3 John 1:9-10).

So the local assembly needs to meet, and pray, and discuss these things, and get them ironed out.

Well this seems to relate more to personal issues. The issue at hand is a tradition of men that is strangling the Churches. But yes the saints should get together and hammer it out and pray for wisdom.

Of course the leadership would not allow saints to be part of the process. So it comes down to leadership. It seems clear if they did this the Spirit would convict them for pushing away souls reaching out to him.

They would repent and make a policy statement they were wrong about beards and ask forgiveness. I believe YAH would bless that.

[Michael The Disciple]

Who is desperate?

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.:highfive

[Esaias]

Well this seems to relate more to personal issues. The issue at hand is a tradition of men that is strangling the Churches. But yes the saints should get together and hammer it out and pray for wisdom.

Of course the leadership would not allow saints to be part of the process. Some it comes down to leadership. It seems clear if they did this the Spirit would convict them for pushing away souls reaching out to him.

They would repent and make a policy statement they were wrong about beards and ask forgiveness. I believe YAH would bless that.

The anti-beard position was entirely a reaction to the beatnick, biker, hippie scenes. Most in leadership today are from that era, or are those whom that generation of leadership trained. Today, beards have no connection to drugged out beatnicks, bikers, or hippies, as beards and facial hair are worn by a large cross section of society now (just as they were before the 40s-50s). so I imagine it's just a matter of time and the whole facial hair issue will simply fade out.

Unless the hipsters ruin it for us all with their Twin Peaks neckbeards and plaid shirts and crummy coffee.

[Michael The Disciple]

The anti-beard position was entirely a reaction to the beatnick, biker, hippie scenes. Most in leadership today are from that era, or are those whom that generation of leadership trained. Today, beards have no connection to drugged out beatnicks, bikers, or hippies, as beards and facial hair are worn by a large cross section of society now (just as they were before the 40s-50s). so I imagine it's just a matter of time and the whole facial hair issue will simply fade out.

Unless the hipsters ruin it for us all with their Twin Peaks neckbeards and plaid shirts and crummy coffee.

Beards are connected to hippies so we peach against all people wearing them?

How does that square with suits being worn by Politicians, CIA killers, Wall Street swindlers, and HOLLYWOOD ACTORS?

If they were honest in their ways they would have forbidden the people from dressing like the world. I will believe they are sincere in this matter when they give up their suits that connect them to worldliness.

[Aquila]

OK let me explain something about the differences between the Army or a business requiring men to shave.

I understand perfectly the Army reason, since I was a soldier. we shaved our beard because we needed to wear gas masks that would protect us against a chemical or biological attack.

Now a business may require people to shave to hold employment because it is the regulations, but the business does not tell a person that if they do not shave they will be eternally lost. and really a business does not care if while you are in vacation you grow a beard like Aaron the priest.

The big difference is that many ministers condemn all men who have beards as being in sin, even if they do not belong to their church. to them anyone who does not shave is not saved and that is judging.

If beard was a sin, then it would be listed as a sin somewhere in the scriptures after all most men grow a beard, it is a natural occurrence for millennia, it would have quite easy for Moses or any of the prophets, Apostles or even Jesus to take a second and condemn beards in just one verse, but the fact that there is not one single verse that condemns beards is a clear indication that they never saw nothing wrong with them.

Amen.

[Aquila]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

CS Lewis wrote a wonderful book called The Screwtape Letters. I highly recommend it. In one particular chapter, Mr. Lewis details how one of the best ways to undermine a new believer's faith is to get them to disregard Jesus as He actually is, and instead come to believe in a pseudo-Jesus, of one's own making.

As long as that believer is fixed on following and worshipping the pseudo-Jesus of his or her own making, their faith will never really take off and eventually, they will end up falling on their face, and never understand the reason why. Their version of Jesus will fade from view and they'll never even realize their version of Jesus was a fake Jesus all along.

This is what man-made traditions and ideas do to the saints: they create false views of Who Jesus really is. To embrace such things at any level is to undermine true faith in the Lord. You (figuratively speaking) don't believe that? Fine, go your way and continue on in your convictions and may your faith in them make you whole.

But think for a moment what is at stake. We believe all scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine and etc., right? We believe that, right? We believe Paul, for example, was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his writings are eternally binding on all believers everywhere, right?

So, when Paul writes to the Corinthians and tells them "Not that we have dominion over your faith", we understand that not even Paul, the greatest apostle and evangelist in the history of Christianity, whose writings make up the bulk of the New Testament, could claim to be able to or have the right to, be a "lord" (check the Greek here) over someone else's faith. And that statement was "God-breathed" was it not? It's Holy Scripture, right?

And what does Simon Peter write about lording it over God's heritage? It's all derived from the same Greek word. What does Jesus say about how the gentiles exercise dominion or lordship over one another and think themselves benefactors of those whom they rule? It's all from the same Greek word/concept. He emphatically and unequivocally states "It shall not be so among you".

But here we are, not quite 2,000 years removed from those days and we're still coming out of Babylon, still entertaining catholic spirits of papist wickedness, giving in and allowing one another to exercise dominion over each other, and over the faith's of one another, in CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE SON OF GOD AND HIS APOSTLES, and we think ourselves benefactors for doing so, just like Gentiles who walk in the darkness of their minds.

You have only one Leader, and it's Christ Jesus:

Matthew 23:10 (NASB),

Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

Go and look at the word "leaders" above in the Greek. It is the correct way to translate καθηγηταί.

Paul, by the Spirit, told his audience to "acquit yourselves like men". What does that mean? How should men act like men? How do they maintain their masculinity, their "male-ness", if you will. What did the Lord through Paul want His men to be or do, to make sure that verse of Holy Scripture was obeyed?

Certainly it's not to let another man replace Christ as your head?, Or to allow someone else to replace you as your wife's head?

If you (figuratively speaking) cannot see how letting another man tell your wife what she can and cannot wear is emasculating, I suspect you (figuratively speaking), either are the one doing the emasculating of other men, or you don't mind being neutered by someone else.

What grows out of my face is my business, between my head Jesus and me, and if Jesus can't Himself give me a scripture for it one way or another (because none exist), then no one else can either. And so they don't. Realizing how faltering their position is, instead they go for the jugular a completely different way.

They call it rebellion and pride.

I call it a bunch of cr@p, or dung if you prefer a more Biblical term. It is impossible to rebel against an authority that does not exist. You cannot break a law that isn't actually a law. There is no violation of Holy Scripture occuring when there isn't any verse of Holy Scripture whatsoever on the matter.

And the idea that you can say, "well, chapter and verse don't have to exist" for the pastor or leaders to create a standard; it's just within his or their authority to do as elders and leaders, then you admit you "go by the Book" but something else, too.

And we wonder why the USA is circling the drain and national Christianity is falling away? We blame it on a lot of things, but the fact is, it's because God's not in it, that's why. No one can resist God. Who can contend with the Almighty? Would the state of our culture and society be where it's at today without God being the One to let it come to this?

Our Lord is not involved because we aren't just people of the Book. We are people of the Book, plus these other opinions and ideas. Those other opinions and ideas are what got Christ crucified, His apostles martyred, and the true church of the Living God split open nave to neck on a regular basis by the catholic nightmare.

But any dares try and draw a line in the sand somewhere in Pentecost and say "No! We aren't caving in on this one", and accusation of rebellion, heresy, hypocrisy all start to fly from the lips of the status quo who see nothing wrong with adding in a little leaven here and there, for the sake of some popish "platform" that never existed anywhere in the New Covenant Church.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

When Paul wrote about the kind of church Jesus is coming back for, what did he mean, or rather, what did the Spirit of Christ mean through Paul, when He/he wrote that she must be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, that she must be holy, without blemish?

To answer, imagine wearing a nice suit and tie or dress for a wedding or funeral. Ever find a little spot on that nice tie? Or realize too late your slacks are a bit wrinkled, but you don't have time to change them? Or that your dress is a bit blemished by discoloration from the sun, or something like that?

All these things we would call small and inconsequential. We'd like for them not to exist, but time being of the essence, we go to the wedding or funeral, realizing no one is actually going to care that much about a little stain here or there, a bit of a wrinkle or etc.

But guess what? Try going to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb with that attitude. You're going to be shown the door that leads to wailing and gnashing of teeth. I promise you, or what Paul wrote in Ephesians isn't actually binding on us and we can present ourselves as the Church to the Lord any old way we please.

What does God say in Malachi about when the priests offered him weak and sickly animals, ones that are blemished or damaged in some way? He says He would prefer that they not even open the doors of the temple! Why?

Because they mixed man-made ideas into how to serve God by becoming partial in the Law. I'm sorry if no one ever told you this, but God is going to recompense every man-made idea and human tradition tacked onto His People, particularly those who ought to know better because they are supposed to be more spiritually discerning and wise regarding the ways of the Lord, which is to say, the ministry.

And the answer to that fearsome truth is simply, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. To such a flippant response, I offer you Ezekiel 34.

Wow. Amen.

These are some of the best posts I've read on this forum. Dear God in Heaven, forgive us. Forgive me. While I'm obviously calling attention to the unbiblical beard standard... I'm feeling convicted to examine my life and examine what man made traditions, spots, and wrinkles might exist in my faith beyond beards. This is so convicting, so pure, and so powerful.

Thank you for just being you and following the Lord Votive. I so truly appreciate what you've shared here. Thank you.

[Aquila]

While what you have written is generally true, there is another side to the subject.

And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
(Exodus 18:14-26)

And in the new testament Scripture:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
(Matthew 18:15-20)

And again:

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
(1 Corinthians 6:2-5)

There does seem to be some leeway given to the assembly to establish certain judgments. The issue of church discipline of erring members rests upon an authority given to the assembly. Of course, there is the possibility of error, as that same authority which was delegated to the judges and elders of Israel later on were morphed into the travesty known as Talmudic Pharisaism (the "traditions of the elders" which were notorious for contradicting the actual Word of God). And, the same authority given to the elders of the new covenant assembly over time was warped into the clerical "magisterium" which gave rise to the catholic movement (see 3 John 1:9-10).

So the local assembly needs to meet, and pray, and discuss these things, and get them ironed out.

You're right, there does need to be some leeway given to the assembly to establish certain judgments. But, shouldn't those judgments be predicated upon the Word of God and biblical principle, not just arbitrary human opinion? It's almost like at one point the elders of the UPCI and others discovered the power of organizational politics. Having done this, they established some guidelines based on biblical principles that eventually became distinctive standards. But then it's like they became drunk with this power and began to establish certain standards without any biblical warrant, just for the sake of having a standard.

I'm all for that leeway you mention. But I believe it should be used with regards to biblical principle. For example, let's say a church has a standard against mini-skirts. Now, there are sound biblical principles of modesty to refer to when establishing such a standard.

But, no one can find a sound biblical principle to build a case against specifically against beards. The closest I've seen is that men can be proud of their beards. But, men can be proud of their pickup trucks, gun collection, careers, education, and an endless litany of other things. Do we set a "platform standard" that a man can't have a gun collection or a pickup truck? No. In fact, such a standard would have many men really up in arms. But that's how many of us with beards feel. Our liberty is under assault with no biblical warrant. We're relegated to the pews in the churches we serve and contribute to. Our money is good enough for those on the platform... but we're not??? Is the church embarrassed of us? If so, it isn't because there is anything inherently wrong with a beard. It is because it calls to attention a standard that produces an unnecessary divide in the body. There simply is no biblical need for such a standard, platform or otherwise.

[Aquila]

Winds of change. We are desperate.

Our movement is... growing. lol

[Aquila]

The anti-beard position was entirely a reaction to the beatnick, biker, hippie scenes. Most in leadership today are from that era, or are those whom that generation of leadership trained. Today, beards have no connection to drugged out beatnicks, bikers, or hippies, as beards and facial hair are worn by a large cross section of society now (just as they were before the 40s-50s). so I imagine it's just a matter of time and the whole facial hair issue will simply fade out.

Unless the hipsters ruin it for us all with their Twin Peaks neckbeards and plaid shirts and crummy coffee.

Indeed, it was a reaction. But is a reaction always sound? Many churches dealt with the challenges of the hippies, bikers, and beatnicks... without prohibiting beards. It appears to be an overreaction, in my opinion. They could have preached against the actual "sins" that were prevalent within these subcultures. But they decide to preach against... beards. It sounds a bit like an overreaction.

As far as hipsters ruining anything... neckbeards, plaid shirts, and crummy coffee aren't sins. What actual "sins" are predominantly found in hipster culture? I know some in the house church movement who have a hipster "style" about them. But they are rather clean living.

[n david]

Just curious. Give me your opinion of this passage in light of the post above.

Jas.2

[1] My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
[2] For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
[3] And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
[4] Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
[5] Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
[6] But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
[7] Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
[8] If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.

Take your time and break it down verse by verse. Please.
Apples and oranges. I don't need to break it down verse by verse because this isn't about the issue.

[Aquila]

Apples and oranges. I don't need to break it down verse by verse because this isn't about the issue.

You're right. It isn't about the issue of beards. But it is about treating people like second class citizens in church gatherings just because their appearance is different from the appearance of another.

As a man with a beard (which you admitted isn't a sin), the fact that a pastor wouldn't allow me to be on the platform, but would allow my shaved brother sitting right beside me to be on the platform, makes me a second class citizen in that church over something that isn't a sin or prohibited in Scripture.

If it isn't a sin, and if Scripture doesn't place any prohibition, or regulation, why even invent such a divisive policy???

James 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.

James 2:9 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

While the Scripture doesn't indicate that a beard is sinful in any way... showing favoritism and/or partiality is clearly specified as being sin. But that sin is okay according to the majority of UPCI pastors that I know... as long as the "bearded ones" remain out of sight.

In the end, our money is welcomed to fund things for the platform... but our participation on that very platform is not.

I'm surprised those of us with beards aren't required to use different water fountains.

[n david]

They would repent and make a policy statement they were wrong about beards and ask forgiveness.
Where did the bad man touch you?

Why do you need the UPCI to repent and issue a public apology?

At some point you just have to move on and let it go.

[Michael The Disciple]

Where did the bad man touch you?

Why do you need the UPCI to repent and issue a public apology?

At some point you just have to move on and let it go.

Oh its not JUST the UPC. Its all the Pastors and Preachers that have taught false doctrine over the years no doubt causing many to lose their souls. They must certainly repent and apologize. THEN we can move on.

[Michael The Disciple]

You're right. It isn't about the issue of beards. But it is about treating people like second class citizens in church gatherings just because their appearance is different from the appearance of another.

As a man with a beard (which you admitted isn't a sin), the fact that a pastor wouldn't allow me to be on the platform, but would allow my shaved brother sitting right beside me to be on the platform, makes me a second class citizen in that church over something that isn't a sin or prohibited in Scripture.

If it isn't a sin, and if Scripture doesn't place any prohibition, or regulation, why even invent such a divisive policy???

James 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.

James 2:9 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

While the Scripture doesn't indicate that a beard is sinful in any way... showing favoritism and/or partiality is clearly specified as being sin. But that sin is okay according to the majority of UPCI pastors that I know... as long as the "bearded ones" remain out of sight.

In the end, our money is welcomed to fund things for the platform... but our participation on that very platform is not.

I'm surprised those of us with beards aren't required to use different water fountains.

Powerful:yourock

[Aquila]

Oh its not JUST the UPC. Its all the Pastors and Preachers that have taught false doctrine over the years no doubt causing many to lose their souls. They must certainly repent and apologize. THEN we can move on.

You know... the more I think about it... the more it troubles me. Imagine being a pastor watching all the souls that could have otherwise been saved being cast into Hell... because YOU made them feel unwelcomed, like second class citizens in the kingdom, or like they had sinned... for no biblical reason.

How could God just fist bump those pastors and forgive such a thing???

[aegsm76]

You know... the more I think about it... the more it troubles me. Imagine being a pastor watching all the souls that would have otherwise been saved being cast into Hell... because YOU made them feel unwelcomed, or like they had sinned... for no biblical reason.

How could God just fist bump those pastors and forgive such a thing???

Imagine being lost just because you harbored bitterness in your heart since you were not willing to give up a beard because it offended your brother...

[Aquila]

Imagine being lost just because you harbored bitterness in your heart since you were not willing to give up a beard because it offended your brother...

I don't have bitterness. I'm saddened. I also have a degree of righteous anger, indignation, against those who would take my money, but not treat me as an equal in the body as those who are shaven. I'm saddened to see the sin of partiality over something that isn't even prohibited in Scripture. A cultural partiality that has alienated many a man from Christ. If I am bitter... it's because such an unbiblical standard has cost a number of men their souls. Who in their right mind wouldn't be bitter about that?

Showing partiality in the body is a sin (James 2:9).

If the sin of partiality, which IS mentioned in Scripture, isn't repented of... those guilty of such an unnecessary and divisive sin will no doubt bust Hell wide open... and their shaven faces won't be able to save them.

[Aquila]

Imagine being a pastor in the Judgment... and hearing all the statements you've made against those brethren with beards. You watch all the occasions you treated bearded men like they were second class citizens in the church by not allowing their full participation. You see every dollar they put in the plate, how they supported your ministry, how they prayed for you... and then... it is revealed to you how deeply your words hurt them, discouraged them and their families, and even caused some to stumble and fall away from the truth. And as you stare at what you've done in shame because you know there is no Bible for it... and even admitted that it isn't a sin... you look over at your Judge... and His deep eyes peer at you, with tears streaming down, His bearded face.

Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

http://www1.cbn.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_xl_640x480/public/cbnnews/PasionDeCristoSecuela_LW.jpg?itok=Vk0ARZkA

[n david]

You're right. It isn't about the issue of beards. But it is about treating people like second class citizens in church gatherings just because their appearance is different from the appearance of another.

As a man with a beard (which you admitted isn't a sin), the fact that a pastor wouldn't allow me to be on the platform, but would allow my shaved brother sitting right beside me to be on the platform, makes me a second class citizen in that church.

If it isn't a sin, and if Scripture doesn't place any prohibition, or regulation, why even invent such a divisive policy???

James 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.

That's pretty clear.
If you read his post, he's quoting my post about the most recent experience I had with creating a guideline. Not sure you noticed, but that guideline did NOT include a prohibition on beards. That church was a predominate hispanic church and the Pastor did not prohibit facial hair on men.

So your response here doesn't match the narrative or flow of the conversation.

Now, in response to this post . . .

Using your logic, the ministry and platform should be open to anyone and everyone, including those who aren't even saved.

Absurd.

The context of this passage is about giving favor to those who are rich and give to the church over those who are poor and cannot.

This passage references Leviticus 19:15, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."

[n david]

Imagine being a pastor in the Judgment... and hearing all the statements you've made against those brethren with beards. You watch all the occasions you treated bearded men like they were second class citizens in the church by not allowing their full participation. You see every dollar they put in the plate, how they supported your ministry, how they prayed for you... and then... it is revealed to you how deeply your words hurt them, discouraged them and their families, and even caused some to stumble and fall away from the truth. And as you stare at what you've done in shame because you know there is no Bible for it... and even admitted that it isn't a sin... you look over at your Judge... and His deep eyes peer at you, with tears streaming down, His bearded face.

Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

http://www1.cbn.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_xl_640x480/public/cbnnews/PasionDeCristoSecuela_LW.jpg?itok=Vk0ARZkA

I am 100% it won't be Jim Caviezel sitting on the Throne on the Day of Judgment. smh

[Aquila]

Using your logic, the ministry and platform should be open to anyone and everyone, including those who aren't even saved.

Are you now saying that a Oneness brother who has obeyed Acts 2:38, lives a clean and holy life, isn't saved if he has a beard?

I ask that because I'm only talking about those who are born again of water and Spirit, baptized in Jesus name, seeking to live Christlike lives, who know that Jesus is the Lord of Glory, and .... who happen to have beards.

You're saying that the pastor should be allowed to treat such a brother like a second class citizen in the Kingdom, when you admittedly stated that beards aren't a sin at all.

[n david]

Oh its not JUST the UPC. Its all the Pastors and Preachers that have taught false doctrine over the years no doubt causing many to lose their souls. They must certainly repent and apologize. THEN we can move on.

That's not what the Bible says. :nah

[n david]

Showing partiality in the body is a sin (James 2:9).
Taking the verse out of context and twisting in a feeble attempt to apply it to beards. Doesn't work.

[Aquila]

I am 100% it won't be Jim Caviezel sitting on the Throne on the Day of Judgment. smh

I know. And that should bring sobriety to your position. Because the one on the Throne will be Jesus. Who wore a beard.

[n david]

Are you now saying that a Oneness brother who has obeyed Acts 2:38, lives a clean and holy life, isn't saved if he has a beard?
Where in the world did you get that from my response?

You're taking James out of context and twisting it in an attempt to make it apply to beards. You're claiming - Pastors and churches shouldn't show favoritism (or discriminate) against anyone.

Well, how far are you going to go with that? Where do you draw the line?

By your logic, Pastors and churches should allow anyone behind the pulpit or on the platform.

By your logic, there should be no expectations or guidelines for ministry.

Absurd!

[Aquila]

Taking the verse out of context and twisting in a feeble attempt to apply it to beards. Doesn't work.

It applies to showing partiality. It doesn't matter if it's because of their apparent wealth, the quality of their clothes, or the appearance of their face, or even their skin color. Showing favoritism and partiality within the body is a sin.

Would a shaven brother be given partiality over a brother with a beard on the platforms of most UPCI churches?

Yep.

[n david]

I know. And that should bring sobriety to your position. Because the one on the Throne will be Jesus. Who wore a beard.
You're a mess, dude.

I mean, really.

[JoeBandy]

Imagine being lost just because you harbored bitterness in your heart since you were not willing to give up a beard because it offended your brother...

You bring this up considering the "offended" society we live in today???

[Aquila]

Let's say that I wish to praise sing in a church with one of these "no beard" platform policies. Would the pastor permit my shaven brothers to participate on the platform... and yet deny me the opportunity to serve and offer my talents, on account of... my beard?

He has no problems with taking my money though, does he?

That's partiality. And there is no Bible for it. You admitted it.

[JoeBandy]

What about shaving every thing except the beard? Is that a sin??

[JoeBandy]

Let's say that I wish to praise sing in a church with one of these "no beard" platform policies. Would the pastor permit my shaven brothers to participate on the platform... and denying me the opportunity to serve and offer my talents, on account of... my beard?

That's partiality. And there is no Bible for it. You admitted it.
Where I am from you would not be on platform with facial hair.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Imagine being lost just because you harbored bitterness in your heart since you were not willing to give up a beard because it offended your brother...

That's exactly what I was taught.

When I first came to church I had my fu-manchu (no not the bull) but the moustache. Well, I shaved it off and kept it off for a while. When I grew it back I was working with an elder from church. He said brother, are you growing back your moustache and beard? I replied in the affirmative. We then went into a Bible discussion, and I told him that there is no Bible for shaving the face. He then turned to me and asked "would you do it for me?" In seconds I said "yes."

When I was young I had a real beard which would make ZZ Top cry.
My eldest sister asked me once to please shave it off. So I cut it in half. My father hated it, but I refused to remove it, and I loved, and respected him.
My mother couldn't stand the beard, or my long, long ponytail. She said I look like an axe murderer. But I wouldn't remove it totally for anyone. Until the day I came to church. I remember a friend I had who was in a Mexican gang, and when he was trying to rehabilitate himself (not to Christianity) he shaved his head, and facial hair. We both are covered in tattoos, but couldn't do anything about that. I asked him what was he doing? He said bro, I making it clean, right down to the bone. Awesome, I thought. Yet, I couldn't do that before I met Jesus Christ. Another friend who came to church had a mustache that was Cubano, and out of nowhere, he got up in a Bible study and said my mustache is ME MAN! Everyone else was like, huh? Because the Bible study had zero to do with anything about hair on the head, or face.

I brought this up to my pastor and he told me leave it alone. That is between the brother and Jesus. One day he shaved off his moustache, and I thought someone told him. But he he assured me that Jesus told him to do it. I thought to myself no way, it isn't in the Bible. But what I was missing is that there are more issues then to shave or not to shave. The main issue sometimes is that somethings in our lives are more about us pleasing us then pleasing others. I am not saying that beard or no beard is a focus, I am saying that we might have something in our lives which we wouldn't let go because it is our own personal identification. I had a friend that I won to the Lord who had a long pinkie nail. Nothing in the Bible saying a man cannot have long finger nails. But that one long finger nail served a purpose at one time. Jesus had to deal with him, personally, because if you brought it up that he should cut it off he would ask where in the BIBLE does it say he can't have it? Everyone wants to be Bible New Testament originals, but unless you want a circus side show parked in your congregation someone has to allow Jesus to do His work. Somethings in our culture is down right aboriginal, hunched over primitive. Christianity didn't take away from civilization it added to civilization.

[n david]

It applies to showing partiality. It doesn't matter if it's because of their apparent wealth, the quality of their clothes, or the appearance of their face, or even their skin color. Showing favoritism and partiality within the body is a sin.

Would a shaven brother be given partiality over a brother with a beard on the platforms of most UPCI churches?

Yep.

Again, James is referencing Leviticus, which is about class (poor vs rich). Context matters.

You cannot try to twist scripture to apply to beards because you want it to.

But here's a deal: why don't you start a church based on your view of James. You cannot show any partiality or discriminate against anyone! You must allow anyone - even those unsaved - to be used in ministry and on the platform.

Drunk Fred, still in a hangover from the night before at the club -- he's giving the sermon. Sally, the girl who the night before sold her body for $100 -- she wants to play the piano and sing a special.

Don't worry about beards, that will be the least of your issues. :nod

[JoeBandy]

That's exactly what I was taught.

When I first came to church I had my fu-manchu (no not the bull) but the moustache. Well, I shaved it off and kept it off for a while. When I grew it back I was working with an elder from church. He said brother, are you growing back your moustache and beard? I replied in the affirmative. We then went into a Bible discussion, and I told him that there is no Bible for shaving the face. He then turned to me and asked "would you do it for me?" In seconds I said "yes."

When I was young I had a real beard which would make ZZ Top cry.
My eldest sister asked me once to please shave it off. So I cut it in half. My father hated it, but I refused to remove it, and I loved, and respected him.
My mother couldn't stand the beard, or my long, long ponytail. She said I look like an axe murderer. But I wouldn't remove it totally for anyone. Until the day I came to church. I remember a friend I had who was in a Mexican gang, and when he was trying to rehabilitate himself (not to Christianity) he shaved his head, and facial hair. We both are covered in tattoos, but couldn't do anything about that. I asked him what was he doing? He said bro, I making it clean, right down to the bone. Awesome, I thought. Yet, I couldn't do that before I met Jesus Christ. Another friend who came to church had a mustache that was Cubano, and out of nowhere, he got up in a Bible study and said my mustache is ME MAN! Everyone else was like, huh? Because the Bible study had zero to do with anything about hair on the head, or face.

I brought this up to my pastor and he told me leave it alone. That is between the brother and Jesus. One day he shaved off his moustache, and I thought someone told him. But he he assured me that Jesus told him to do it. I thought to myself no way, it isn't in the Bible. But what I was missing is that there are more issues then to shave or not to shave. The main issue sometimes is that somethings in our lives are more about us pleasing us then pleasing others. I am not saying that beard or no beard is a focus, I am saying that we might have something in our lives which we wouldn't let go because it is our own personal identification. I had a friend that I won to the Lord who had a long pinkie nail. Nothing in the Bible saying a man cannot have long finger nails. But that one long finger nail served a purpose at one time. Jesus had to deal with him, personally, because if you brought it up that he should cut it off he would ask where in the BIBLE does it say he can't have it? Everyone wants to be Bible New Testament originals, but unless you want a circus side show parked in your congregation someone has to allow Jesus to do His work. Somethings in our culture is down right aboriginal, hunched over primitive. Christianity didn't take away from civilization it added to civilization.

No one cares what you think EB. You suffer from "toxic masculinity"!!!