To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Antipas]

If you want to wear a beard just wear a beard. Most pastors aren't going to harass you over it.

[Esaias]

It seems there is no sound doctrine concerning ecclesiastical authority.

Is the Bible the sole rule and final authority for faith and practice? I submit that it is. I submit that the Bible itself claims for itself that authority and role.

That "man shall live by every word of God" is a concise summary statement of the doctrine of the Authority of Scripture.

That "we have a more sure word of prophecy" is a declaration that the scripture trumps spiritual experiences and ecstasies and visions personal experiences and so forth.

That all scripture "is profitable for doctrine... that the man of God may be perfect" is a declaration of both the final authority of scripture and the sufficiency of scripture.

It is obvious that scripture does not address every possible issue in direct, express fashion. Therefore, it is a necessary inference that, since we must bring scripture to bear on every issue we face, but not all issues are directly addressed, we must discover guiding principles by which we address those unaddressed issues, in such a way as to discover the mind of God on the particular subject. And, the mind of God being known by revelation, and the Scripture being the more sure word of revelation, our "solutions" must be in harmony with, and not contradict, scripture.

How do we do that? What are we looking for in scripture, to provide guidance?

Express commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.

Express commands: for example, the prohibitions against idolatry.

Approved examples: for example, breaking bread at the beginning or during the meal while sharing the cup after the meal, unison congregational prayer of scriptural psalms (see Acts. 4:23-26), etc.

Necessary inferences: for example, we are to use psalms in corporate worship (Col 3:16) but no melody, tempo, or particular style is prescribed; therefore it is a necessary inference that such matters are matters of liberty to be decided by the church.

So then, we should be guided by the express commands, approved examples, and any necessary inferences, found in and derived from scripture.

Or, folks can just do what they want.

[Esaias]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Good afternoon, Bro. Burk!

In your estimation, how much leeway should a minister be given when deciding what rules are "for those saints' spiritual well-being," and what constitutes "a valid reason?"

As both a preacher and a parent, I can appreciate your question about making rules.

In my study, I talked about how a standard against wearing local gang colors or gang clothing styles would protect the saints against misidentification or personal harm. Of course, that standard is not found in the Bible, but it is still valid since it is established for the specific purpose of the "spiritual well-being" of the saints.

In contrast, I know one pastor who loved playing the card game Rook. After a few years, he decided he enjoyed it too much. Instead of him stopping, he made his Rook problem into a church standard. He took that rule to the pulpit and preached that playing Rook was a sin. He asked all the saints to throw their games away so they would not be in rebellion. Years later this same pastor changed his mind and dropped that standard so the church (including him) could again play Rook. I never saw this "standard" serving the "spiritual well-being" of the saints. Instead, it was a personal conviction of that pastor, which he forced onto his congregation. So, because it was about him and not something related to God, I would say that rule was "invalid," so he was right to drop it.

With the above in mind, I think your question of "how much leeway" a minister has "when deciding" is better asked as "how much leeway" does a minister believe they have with God? What I mean is, since God calls ministers to act as servants and not masters, no rule should ever be made from a preacher's personal beliefs or selfish purposes. The first pastor's rule served the needs of his congregation. The second pastor's rule served him in his own struggle. I believe a minister should be able to tell those he serves a legitimate reason why a rule was being made and how it will benefit them. Any rule that sounds like a "do it because I said so" is probably coming from a preacher that doesn't see themselves as such a servant, which means their rule is probably not a "valid" one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

As both a preacher and a parent, I can appreciate your question about making rules.

In my study, I talked about how a standard against wearing local gang colors or gang clothing styles would protect the saints against misidentification or personal harm. Of course, that standard is not found in the Bible, but it is still valid since it is established for the specific purpose of the "spiritual well-being" of the saints.

In contrast, I know one pastor who loved playing the card game Rook. After a few years, he decided he enjoyed it too much. Instead of him stopping, he made his Rook problem into a church standard. He took that rule to the pulpit and preached that playing Rook was a sin. He asked all the saints to throw their games away so they would not be in rebellion. Years later this same pastor changed his mind and dropped that standard so the church (including him) could again play Rook. I never saw this "standard" serving the "spiritual well-being" of the saints. Instead, it was a personal conviction of that pastor, which he forced onto his congregation. So, because it was about him and not something related to God, I would say that rule was "invalid," so he was right to drop it.

With the above in mind, I think your question of "how much leeway" a minister has "when deciding" is better asked as "how much leeway" does a minister believe they have with God? What I mean is, since God calls ministers to act as servants and not masters, no rule should ever be made from a preacher's personal beliefs or selfish purposes. The first pastor's rule served the needs of his congregation. The second pastor's rule served him in his own struggle. I believe a minister should be able to tell those he serves a legitimate reason why a rule was being made and how it will benefit them. Any rule that sounds like a "do it because I said so" is probably coming from a preacher that doesn't see themselves as such a servant, which means their rule is probably not a "valid" one.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

As both a preacher and a parent, I can appreciate your question about making rules.

In my study, I talked about how a standard against wearing local gang colors or gang clothing styles would protect the saints against misidentification or personal harm. Of course, that standard is not found in the Bible, but it is still valid since it is established for the specific purpose of the "spiritual well-being" of the saints.

In contrast, I know one pastor who loved playing the card game Rook. After a few years, he decided he enjoyed it too much. Instead of him stopping, he made his Rook problem into a church standard. He took that rule to the pulpit and preached that playing Rook was a sin. He asked all the saints to throw their games away so they would not be in rebellion. Years later this same pastor changed his mind and dropped that standard so the church (including him) could again play Rook. I never saw this "standard" serving the "spiritual well-being" of the saints. Instead, it was a personal conviction of that pastor, which he forced onto his congregation. So, because it was about him and not something related to God, I would say that rule was "invalid," so he was right to drop it.

With the above in mind, I think your question of "how much leeway" a minister has "when deciding" is better asked as "how much leeway" does a minister believe they have with God? What I mean is, since God calls ministers to act as servants and not masters, no rule should ever be made from a preacher's personal beliefs or selfish purposes. The first pastor's rule served the needs of his congregation. The second pastor's rule served him in his own struggle. I believe a minister should be able to tell those he serves a legitimate reason why a rule was being made and how it will benefit them. Any rule that sounds like a "do it because I said so" is probably coming from a preacher that doesn't see themselves as such a servant, which means their rule is probably not a "valid" one.

Thank you, Bro. Burk!

One follow up question and I'll quit wasting your time. Given the above, would I be correct in saying that a valid reason in one area may fall flat in another? In other words, the pastor in the first example presented a valid reason regarding gangs, but to apply that same reasoning in an area without significant gang activity would be incorrect.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Thank you, Bro. Burk!

One follow up question and I'll quit wasting your time. Given the above, would I be correct in saying that a valid reason in one area may fall flat in another? In other words, the pastor in the first example presented a valid reason regarding gangs, but to apply that same reasoning in an area without significant gang activity would be incorrect.

You're not wasting my time...I enjoy talking about Bible stuff!

Two types of "rules" need to be discussed here. These are church standards and personal convictions.

A church standard is either based on what the Bible says, or it is based on what the current time dictates necessary to keep the believers in good standings with each other, their community, and their God.

A personal conviction is a rule that keeps an individual in good standings with God.

Thus, a standard would be obeyed by the entire church body. Whereas, a personal conviction might not be shared by anyone else in the church body except that one individual.

An example of how this applies to the subject of this thread would be: the standard of the church is to not allow long hair on the men. This standard is based on Paul's instructions found in 1 Corinthians 11:14. But since there is no scripture against a man growing facial hair, and since facial hair is not offensive in today's society, any rule against growing it would be a personal conviction.

This is why the leadership needs to be prepared to give a reasonable response to support any standards set for the church. If they cannot do that then they're not shepherds leading sheep but cowboys driving cattle.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

You're not wasting my time...I enjoy talking about Bible stuff!

Two types of "rules" need to be discussed here. These are church standards and personal convictions.

A church standard is either based on what the Bible says, or it is based on what the current time dictates necessary to keep the believers in good standings with each other, their community, and their God.

A personal conviction is a rule that keeps an individual in good standings with God.

Thus, a standard would be obeyed by the entire church body. Whereas, a personal conviction might not be shared by anyone else in the church body except that one individual.

An example of how this applies to the subject of this thread would be: the standard of the church is to not allow long hair on the men. This standard is based on Paul's instructions found in 1 Corinthians 11:14. But since there is no scripture against a man growing facial hair, and since facial hair is not offensive in today's society, any rule against growing it would be a personal conviction.

This is why the leadership needs to be prepared to give a reasonable response to support any standards set for the church. If they cannot do that then they're not shepherds leading sheep but cowboys driving cattle.

I'm glad you feel that way because I have a bad habit of going off on tangents and asking a thousand and one questions. Ha!

So in trying to keep this in line with the thread topic of beards, how should leadership go about undoing a standard that has been in place, but is now understood to be improper? For instance, if a pastor has preached against beards for two decades -- and the congregation has accepted this as necessary -- but the pastor then 'sees the light', how can that pastor undo this standard without eroding a foundation that has been built over the years? It seems as though it would be difficult to tell a congregation that what was 'wrong' for two decades is now suddenly okay without receiving quite a blowback.

[derAlte]

I have an African-American relative who made the mistake of wearing a red tracksuit while riding the bus from California to see us. No one would look at him or make eye contact because they thought he was a "Blood" gang member. It was a bad choice, but fortunately, no one shot him.

Out here on the range, where the deer and the antelope play, the red tracksuit didn't faze anybody. Because Black people are few on the ground around here, that made him more exotic than his clothes.

In California, I'd advise him to ditch the tracksuit for his own safety. In 50 years, when the few surviving gangbangers are residents of geriatric wards (if the Lord tarries), it would seem kind of silly to continue to advise against red tracksuits.

Seems the same reasoning would apply to beards.