To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Ehud]

I don't have the time to respond to everything you have presented, but these stood out to me.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Ah, you don't want someone to accidentally or intentionally uncover a woman's nakedness (Leviticus 18:7-16). How Biblical of you! Well done!

If you think that passage is about walking in on a breastfeeding woman, I think it is safe to say that you and I are never going to be on the same page about much of anything. But thank you for the 'atta boy'.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And? If we care to stay in the Holy Scriptures, we find that all of the above is unnecessary, because it's not within the limits of the Bible. The only people ever directed by God to teach children are the parents of the children (Deuteronomy 6:1-9 and Ephesians 6:1-4). Because you have an extra-Biblical ministry, you now have to draw up extra-Biblical rules to govern it.

Pages and pages of by-laws exist for this stuff. But no Bible.

Do you actually have a problem with a church that picks up children in the community, feeds them a meal, and presents to them with a Bible story?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Face to face, one on one, is different than a public forum for the expressing of ideas. Face to face, a different tack may and usually can be taken. But none of us is face to face, so far as I know. This is a completely different form of communication. Here, all we have are typed words, some emojis, and an occasional youtube video or gif. On a message board, if we don't employ the use of rhetoric, we're not going to get much across to anyone.

For everyone turned off, there are others who are turned on.

I am sure I am in the minority, but I am not going to be some keyboard cowboy that says things online that he wouldn't say to someone face-to-face. If you feel the rhetoric you are employing is the only way to get your point across, then by all means continue to use it.

Have a wonderful weekend, sir.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Sadly I do know some of those examples of good Godly well meaning men held hostage by members who dictated what would and would not be taught and preached.


Standing up in church in the midst of a sermon declaring that the pastor was a liar...running good men off because they dared challenge the staus quo...men afraid to preach the truth because the church was a "family " church where over 50% of the members were family.


Ive seen all that mess...lived it and did my best to survive off what scraps I could glean while attending those churches.


What I learned is that there is indeed a God that loves me and cares for me and who speaks.


I learned this not over a pulpit but in a pitch black Sunday School room crying out to God and Him speaking and pouring His Word into my soul.


No I cant speak for "pastors" and what they allow and tolerate. What Ive seen from my own personal experience is a lot of glad handing and back slapping and politicking. Thats whatever...but its confusion when you have a young kid God is leading outside the box who has to make a choice between God...the voice of God backed up by scripture and tradition of the preacher.


Not all of us could leave bro....some of us had to stay due to our age and we were still under our parents and just deal the best we could while still holding true to our faith despite what was going on.


NONE of the people I grew up with are living for God...NONE.

I wasn't raised in an Apostolic Church. Wasn't sleeping under the pews, or drawing in my mother's Bible. I was raised by an atheist who pointed out that maybe 60 % of those raised in any religion either leave it totally, or continue in it as a good citizen. As years went by I became an Apostolic Pentecostal. I watched children grow up live for God, and others follow the path my father told me about. My old pap was a pretty intuitive man. He was a rough guy growing up in the streets of the Bronx New York, later drafted into WWII. Coming home to marry his childhood sweetheart, and raising a family. His bad life choices caused him to divorce childhood sweetheart, and lose his children because he had a sweetheart on the side. He loved his children, but because he couldn't control his libido, he destroyed his family. I would go through a slew of abusive stepfathers, and one severely bad alcoholic abusive step mother. While my biological parents loved me, they were trapped by their bad decisions. Sunday school, and Bible reading wasn't an option for me. While I had religious Jewish relatives and Catholic (mainstream, and Sedevacantist) relatives no Pentecostals in sight. I said all that to say this, people are people, it is a human individual thing, and I'm the only one who can choose what I want for me. Because I have total control over me. I knew that early in life, therefore I'm still alive after living through some crazy situations as a teen and young adult. Desire to continue to live for God was somewhere in me, even before I met an Apostolic or knew there was another meaning for UPC other than Universal Product Code. I would listen to Christian radio even when I was hardcore in sin, and wanted to read the Bible but didn't understand thus, thou, thee, forsooth, and seethe it. But my dad was right. The old war harded atheist saw right through religious drum circles, bowing prostate before a statue of Krishna, and the long haired hippy Jesus Freaks in Grand Central Station in the late 60s. His words still stick with me, "a handful of those people ever get a real epiphany. But the rest of the young huddled masses in those religions get to a point where the choice is now their's they will walk away. Not saying they may not come back at a latter time to pick up their ma and pa's old time religion. But for the most part they will hit the chute."

It is all about life choices, everything we ever do in this life. I can't blame anyone for anything that has ever happened to me. Did I have a choice when I was being beaten by stepparents? No, I was a minor, a child, no power to make my own decisions. I rolled on with life whether I liked it or not. But when the opportunity came I jetted. Did I ever hold animosity for my pap, and mom? No, because that was in the past, and nothing can change the past, we can only deal with the present, the here and right now. My dad tried his best, but while he had wisdom for somethings he couldn't see others. My mom the same way. Now, I'm old, and time is getting shorter, but all my best best days in the world cannot outshine even my most horrible days in the Apostolic Church. Those around me who grew up in it and was immersed in Holy Ghost services which would make cinder blocks shoutin happy. Where as cold as a street pole in Alaska winter. But, again, that is an individual's OWN experiences. When I ventured out to visit and see other Apostolics across the country I saw some on fire young people and some stone cold young people. Some of those who were on blazing fire cooled off, those who were ice cold mannequins are living for GOD. Still, it is all about human experience, how people can change if they WANT to change. Usually it has to happen through major tragedy, something super bad. Having to eat maggot ridden pig slop that brings them back to lay prostrate before the statue of Vishnu or slide into a Pentecostal altar with snot bubbles and tears. With all that being said, sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't. As for me, I don't ever want to leave, and I certainly don't want to return to my old life.

[Esaias]

What are the guidelines for pastors or church elderships establishing extra-Biblical rules and regulations that all believers in that assembly are expected to accept and obey?

I mean, surely there are some guidelines, rules, or SOMETHING that would provide some guidance to pastors and churches to help them navigate these waters?

And, how are Christians to recognise the difference between an extraBiblical pastoral church regulation that God backs up vs an extraBiblical rule or directive that God does NOT support? I mean, how does a Christian judge the difference between a pastoral standard and a popish presumption?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Are you speaking of something on the lines of Gurus, Rebbe Mendel Schneerson, Moses David Berg, or Jim Jones? I was having a discussion tonight and someone brought up Jim Jones. I said he got 900 people to kill themselves? Marshall Applewhite got all the men in his group to castrate themselves (surgically in Mexico) and kill themselves. Yet, I know a group called 12 Tribes headed up by a Yoneq Spriggs. Beards are to be grown by men in their group. Also everyone has to look like they just fell off a Sunday school felt board. Now, it is easy to just say well, those are cults. But the facts are it is part and parcel of all religions. Judaism? People who aren't Jews tend to believe that Judaism is a religion which has elements across the board for its believers. But just like Christianity that has more flavors than Baskin Robbins, Judaism does too. Same thing with Islam. You have hadith Islam, and Quran Only Islam. You have blow me up Islam and your nice friendly Islam, waiting for the day they take over your country. Hinduism is a virtual hodgepodge of different views. But I said all that to say this, the elders, teachers, and preachers in their respective religions have leeway as far as modesty. Mennonites, Amish, Pentecostals, Chabad Lubavitch, Muslims, all have their varying views on what is modest. Again, if you don't like what is going on in a congregation, you are free to leave. You don't like the idea of growing a beard like Rip Van Winkle, or Anton Lavey, then pick up the wife and kids and journey on to the next church of your choice. I have never been the lesser for being in a shave only church. Matter of fact it didn't bother me. My brother that I decided to shave smooth after our argument, wasn't my pastor, wasn't my elder, he was my church brother. No one told me I was going to hell over my fu manchu. It was never presented to me that way. But let's face it, all men have facial hair, even if they shave. In the time of Jesus, Judeans were either clean shaven, or full bearded. Grecian Judeans (Judeans who fully adopted the Greek culture) shaved, but to get into the court of the Judeans it wasn't facial hair that allowed you entry, it was your circumcision. I shave, I like shaving, shave more than ye all. But by the morning I have facial hair, I shave it, and when I get home I have facial hair by the end of the day. Again, never had a problem over shaving my face, never heard any of the brothers go wee wee wee all the way home because they shaved for church. So, for me I don't see all the hub bub. I have a great friend who makes it mandatory to have a beard in church. He is the other side of the coin, but he is not alone. There is always that swing of the pendulum. No beards, you be surprised just swings all the way to must have beards. Yet, in religion one must have balance, it is like swerving a car on sheet ice, if you over compensate in either direction you go off the road. That is your slippery slope. Is it a pastor (one leader) over a church? Or eldership (two or more over a church)? Or inevitably, no leaders at all in the church, just a bless me club over cookies and milk. Their is plenty to debate, and we will be knocking each other out while the house burns down around us. Hey, being Biblical is an awesome endeavor, impacting our world a splendid idea. But bearded or smooth brand new razor clean means nothing if we aren't turning our world upside down. Then you get those who say that the shave only church frightens people off with their BIC razors. No, didn't scare me off, didn't scare off all the brothers I know who shave and are in church. But like I said, to each his own. Don't like one pastor over the church? Leave. Don't like plural eldership? Leave. Don't like bearded song leaders? Get up, and go forth from among them.

Those men would be on the worst side of extreme, as examples of what I mean. But from that worst side of extreme, one could still scale down and find another situation, while less horrific, still qualifying as idolatry (spiritual whoredoms).

Balaam and Jezebel in Revelation 2 come to mind. Now, they weren't getting men to castrate themselves or mothers to force poisoned juice drink down their babies' throats, but the idolatry spoken of by the Lord was present, and these two, whoever or whatever they actually represent, had sufficient pull in the assembly to overthrow the faith of some and get people to actually idolize them (Simon Magus also comes to mind. Diotrephes, too. Absalom, Korah, and etc.). And in the case of Jezebel, Jesus said plainly He was going to execute her and her children. Maybe there's a metaphor in there, and it's not literal, but maybe it is???

I don't know, but the end result is the same. Idolatry in the church. Someone in the church is the idol. That idol's word carries more weight than Christ's. Jesus condemns the idol and the members of the church participating in the idolatry and threatens to annihilate them if they don't repent right quick. Literally or metaphorically, it results in spiritual damnation and the second death.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I don't have the time to respond to everything you have presented, but these stood out to me.



If you think that passage is about walking in on a breastfeeding woman, I think it is safe to say that you and I are never going to be on the same page about much of anything. But thank you for the 'atta boy'.




Do you actually have a problem with a church that picks up children in the community, feeds them a meal, and presents to them with a Bible story?




I am sure I am in the minority, but I am not going to be some keyboard cowboy that says things online that he wouldn't say to someone face-to-face. If you feel the rhetoric you are employing is the only way to get your point across, then by all means continue to use it.

Have a wonderful weekend, sir.

It has been a good one so far. Thanks.

As for the rest, it is probably moot to keep quid pro quo bullet-pointing each other. Instead, I would only ask for this:

Answer Esaias's questions!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Those men would be on the worst side of extreme, as examples of what I mean. But from that worst side of extreme, one could still scale down and find another situation, while less horrific, still qualifying as idolatry (spiritual whoredoms).

Balaam and Jezebel in Revelation 2 come to mind. Now, they weren't getting men to castrate themselves or mothers to force poisoned juice drink down their babies' throats, but the idolatry spoken of by the Lord was present, and these two, whoever or whatever they actually represent, had sufficient pull in the assembly to overthrow the faith of some and get people to actually idolize them (Simon Magus also comes to mind. Diotrephes, too. Absalom, Korah, and etc.). And in the case of Jezebel, Jesus said plainly He was going to execute her and her children. Maybe there's a metaphor in there, and it's not literal, but maybe it is???

I don't know, but the end result is the same. Idolatry in the church. Someone in the church is the idol. That idol's word carries more weight than Christ's. Jesus condemns the idol and the members of the church participating in the idolatry and threatens to annihilate them if they don't repent right quick. Literally or metaphorically, it results in spiritual damnation and the second death.

Antichrist actually means to be in His place. Positional more than opposing. William Marion Branham never ordered mass suicide, neither did the Rebbe Mendel Schneerson. Yet, both William Branham and Mendel Schneerson never ordered anyone to put them into a position. Never taught lengthy studies on how they were to be obeyed. People do that all on their own. You and I make freewill decisions whether “Biblical” or secular on a vast variety of choices. Yet, there is church government in the New Testament. Paul advocates his own position, also points out to others there own position. John concerning Diotrephes points out his position as someone who could be a stop to a rouge minister. But with Diotrephes he didn’t work alone. No one ever does. To beard or not to beard, or whatever standard you like or dislike, the group accepts or rejects. This isn’t one man controling by himself. He has to have help enforce his goals and ideas. So, guess what? Whether good or bad, the group all file on the plane fly down to Mexico City to get castrated. I have an Pentecostal church down the road from me. This churches pastor believed that the Tribulation was to take place in 2001. So he had the women in the church get sterilized. But this is the thing, not all the women complied. Some did, the so called true believers. Yet, others didn’t do it and are still sitting on the same pews next to their sterilized sisters. Don’t get me wrong, some did actually leave when 2001 came and went. But even Harold Camping’s group didn’t leave him, a good chunk stayed even to this day. But do I blame Harold Camping? Do I blame Pastor Sterilization? Those who teach mandertory bearding or mandertory shaving? No way! It is all on me and you. What we allow or disallow. In Nuremberg Germany at the end of WWII. Nazi officers were placed on trial. Death penalty for some. But their plea was they were following orders. That defense wasn’t a defense. So before we start a campaign to storm the ecclesiastical Bastille. We must remember before we go to liberate the prisioners. They have a huge part in their own captivity. Again, me shaving ever since I set a foot in an Apostolic church never caused me one issue. So, for me I understand it is all about choice when we get down to the skinny answer. Choice whether to accept, reject, leave, or stay. We still hold the option to vote with our feet. To build idols or take down idols.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What are the guidelines for pastors or church elderships establishing extra-Biblical rules and regulations that all believers in that assembly are expected to accept and obey?

I mean, surely there are some guidelines, rules, or SOMETHING that would provide some guidance to pastors and churches to help them navigate these waters?

And, how are Christians to recognise the difference between an extraBiblical pastoral church regulation that God backs up vs an extraBiblical rule or directive that God does NOT support? I mean, how does a Christian judge the difference between a pastoral standard and a popish presumption?

Sometimes it is supported by good reasoning. Most of the time it has verses peppered throughout. Yet, it is group supported and group ENFORCED.
Going Biblical or Religious is not complex, it is elders introduced and it is group enforced. Whether it is sound or whether it is utter madness.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What are the guidelines for pastors or church elderships establishing extra-Biblical rules and regulations that all believers in that assembly are expected to accept and obey?

I mean, surely there are some guidelines, rules, or SOMETHING that would provide some guidance to pastors and churches to help them navigate these waters?

And, how are Christians to recognise the difference between an extraBiblical pastoral church regulation that God backs up vs an extraBiblical rule or directive that God does NOT support? I mean, how does a Christian judge the difference between a pastoral standard and a popish presumption?

It would be study to show yourself approved.

And to seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling, without taking the word of the preacher and others in the church for everything they say and teach. I was raised in UPCI and the first mistake that was made was that everything was taken verbatim from the preacher. Of course he taught that if you did not take what he taught you were in rebellion, and rebellion was as the sin of witchcraft... Now this man was also the most humble man I have known he taught what he was taught and believed. The point is that sometimes we cannot change everything, but we can change ourselves.

toward the end of his life he made the statement to me, that sometimes he wonders if he would have not preached it as strong if he would have seen more stay in his church. To which I told him, that that would have been wrong because he taught what he believe with conviction, and to do anything else would not have been right for him. Now if he had seen that what he taught was not bible from his point of view that would have been different. Now for me after I had grown up and went into ministry myself I went through a period of time that I did a indep study on everything that our church taught on standards. And changed from what I had been taught to what I now believed to be the word of God. Which ultimately caused me to leave UPCI because I could no longer agree with any of their teachings on standards of holiness.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sometimes it is supported by good reasoning. Most of the time it has verses peppered throughout. Yet, it is group supported and group ENFORCED.
Going Biblical or Religious is not complex, it is elders introduced and it is group enforced. Whether it is sound or whether it is utter madness.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What are the guidelines for pastors or church elderships establishing extra-Biblical rules and regulations that all believers in that assembly are expected to accept and obey?

I mean, surely there are some guidelines, rules, or SOMETHING that would provide some guidance to pastors and churches to help them navigate these waters?

And, how are Christians to recognise the difference between an extraBiblical pastoral church regulation that God backs up vs an extraBiblical rule or directive that God does NOT support? I mean, how does a Christian judge the difference between a pastoral standard and a popish presumption?

Thank you Esaias for these good questions. As I’m sure you know, we DO have scriptural guidelines. There are at least three instances in the Bible where we are forbidden to add to or diminish from God’s word. One such time (in Revelation) assures us that the consequence of doing so is the removal of our name from the Book of Life. So it is very serious. According to the Bible, not my opinion.

In addition we have Paul who praised the Berean saints as more noble than the saints at Thessalonica for studying the scripture to “ see whether these things be so”. Many pastors would call rebellion, what Paul called noble.

Even the Old Testament in the Book of Proverbs advises us to be prudent. A simple man believes everything but a prudent man . . .

Proverbs 14:15

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Of course I realize that debate has at least two sides. So I would like for someone to post scripture saying it’s okay for a pastor to make it up, and pretend that scripture gives him authority up do so.