Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?

[Aquila]

Let's face it. The beard standard isn't in the Bible. It is a tradition of man that was taught for doctrine. And it's high time to tear it down in the name of biblical truth.

And if a preacher can't love a hunger among the people to return to the Word of God and shake off man's traditions... he isn't much of a preacher.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's face it. The beard standard isn't in the Bible. It is a tradition of man that was taught for doctrine. And it's high time to tear it down in the name of biblical truth.

And if a preacher can't love a hunger among the people to return to the Word of God and shake off man's traditions... he isn't much of a preacher.

Amen. I will go as far as to say I believe there WOULD BE A REVIVAL if Apostolics repented of the doctrines of men in the area of dress code.

Like teaching women are in sin by wearing their hair long...but not necessarily uncut.

Men with beards are rebellious, perhaps gay or drug users, and if not still not worthy to stand on the sacred platform.

If one would say revival is getting more people in Church just these two things IMO would bring tens of thousands of hungry believers in.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Amen. I will go as far as to say I believe there WOULD BE A REVIVAL if Apostolics repented of the doctrines of men in the area of dress code.

My personal take on the dress code issue is that dress can be a sensitive matter. Because we are admonished to modesty. Therefore, some degree of decorum should be taught and expected. I think the "extreme" manner in which we approach modesty in dress is spiritually immature. We argue that pants (on women), shorts (on men), short sleeves (in some churches), etc. will "send one to Hell".

Really? Since when did "Hell" become the default reason to do everything we do??? Rather spiritually immature when one thinks about it.

The Scriptures teach modesty. And so, we should strive for modesty. Modesty is often something that one must grow into as they mature spiritually. This takes patience, encouragement for saints to search their souls, and sound teaching. It's easier for the lazy and spiritually dull to just threaten Hell and terrorize the body into compliance.

Like teaching women are in sin by wearing their hair long...but not necessarily uncut.

Men with beards are rebellious, perhaps gay or drug users, and if not still not worthy to stand on the sacred platform.

Well, you know, according to many... American Christian Pentecostals who don't speak a lick of Greek are more fluent in the meaning of the Greek words than most Greek speaking people. lol And, they even have a few paid apologists to parrot their ideas who are educated enough in the Greek to make it sound good. But in nearly 2,000 years, not a single Christian or Greek speaker has concluded that a woman will go to Hell over cut hair... until the 20th Century Pentecostal movement.

Yes, women should have long hair. Men should have short hair. Paul speaks of men with long flowing feminine locks as being a "shame". It's not found in the Law of Moses, the shame was clearly cultural.

If one would say revival is getting more people in Church just these two things IMO would bring tens of thousands of hungry believers in.

True. I've watched people's eyes in church as they begin to hear some standards. It's obvious that they came for Jesus, genuinely experienced Him... and then we force the cookie cutter mold on them and tell them if they really love Jesus, they'll dress like they just stepped out of a 1950's clothing catalogue. People aren't stupid. Most know their Bible enough to know that it doesn't command such. Is it any wonder that we loose so many new converts? We had an Evangelistic revival once years ago. Nearly 30 people were baptized and filled with the Spirit. I'll allow you to image how many were still attending in 6 months.

It's pathetic.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Amen. I will go as far as to say I believe there WOULD BE A REVIVAL if Apostolics repented of the doctrines of men in the area of dress code.

Like teaching women are in sin by wearing their hair long...but not necessarily uncut.

Men with beards are rebellious, perhaps gay or drug users, and if not still not worthy to stand on the sacred platform.

If one would say revival is getting more people in Church just these two things IMO would bring tens of thousands of hungry believers in.

So I have a question. If beards and dress standards is keeping us from revival ... why hasn't there been a revival among people who left the UPC and had hair cutting parties and grew their beards out like Duck Dynasty? From what you and Aquila claim, beard and dress standards are hindering "tens of thousands" of hungry believers. So where's this revival among those liberated from the awful beard prohibition and dress standards?

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. I've watched people's eyes in church as they begin to hear some standards. It's obvious that they came for Jesus, genuinely experienced Him... and then we force the cookie cutter mold on them and tell them if they really love Jesus, they'll dress like they just stepped out of a 1950's clothing catalogue. People aren't stupid. Most know their Bible enough to know that it doesn't command such.

It's not true. It's a lie from hell that if we just relax our dress standards, tens of thousands will come in.

I know personally of a church in another state whose Pastor made a big deal about letting his license expire and pulling the church from the UPC over dress standards. He gave the same kind of stupid argument. Claimed that dress standards were so early 1900s and if they just let them go, multitudes upon multitudes will flood in and there will be revival.

After losing a lot of families initially, they did eventually have people come in who brought the numbers back to where they had been. But the last I checked (and it's been a couple years) the church was still at the same number. There was no multitudes of people who flooded the church in revival. The lead Pastor has a goatee. The two associates have a goatee and beard. The youth/college pastor has a full beard and the worship pastor has something of a beard trying to grow on his face. A couple of the wives have bobbed hair and others in the church have layered cuts.

But that's not all which changed...

See, it's never just the dress standards which changed. I have never found a church which removed dress standards and stopped there. Almost all eventually begin watering down salvation.

Here's the SOF on Salvation from their website today:

"""Salvation is freely offered to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer."""

"""There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."""

The Holy Ghost is no longer required as part of the new birth. Instead, it's part of the maturation of the believer, of which some will experience speaking in tongues.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is it any wonder that we loose so many new converts? We had an Evangelistic revival once years ago. Nearly 30 people were baptized and filled with the Spirit. I'll allow you to image how many were still attending in 6 months.

Hold up. You cannot honestly claim that the lack of retention was due to dress code and beard prohibition.

Most churches are ill-prepared to handle a large number of new converts. That's just a fact. You have a church of 150, of which maybe 50 are actively involved in giving Bible Studies, going on visitation and other things; but they saturate neighborhoods with flyers and suddenly the church has 30 or more baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost in a weekend series of services. Unfortunately, there are a lot of churches which aren't prepared for it. And consequently people fall through the cracks. They have a life-changing, new birth experience, but then go back to their jobs and old friends and without the church having a plan of action for retaining new converts, the majority will likely fall away.

This has nothing to do with beard prohibitions and dress standards. This is about being unprepared and not having something in place for new converts.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

So I have a question. If beards and dress standards is keeping us from revival ... why hasn't there been a revival among people who left the UPC and had hair cutting parties and grew their beards out like Duck Dynasty? From what you and Aquila claim, beard and dress standards are hindering "tens of thousands" of hungry believers. So where's this revival among those liberated from the awful beard prohibition and dress standards?

Beards and dress standards aren't necessarily keeping us from revival. The way I see it is there are several things I can think of that are keeping us from revival. And it probably isn't limited to what I'm listing here. Here's my take on it:

1.) Sin
2.) Worldliness
3.) Pride/Elitism
4.) Lack of genuine love.
5.) Unbiblical traditions of men being taught as doctrine

I'm not against dress standards, because the Bible is clear about modesty. Anyone who would argue that I'm against dress standards is lying to you. Now, my idea of necessary dress standards might differ from some more strict sects in the Apostolic movement, but I do believe in dress standards. There's no need for low cut blouses, mini-skirts, tight women's jeans, sheer see-through clothing, etc. on women who profess to know Jesus. Solid biblical teaching will inspire women to aspire to biblical Christian modesty. Men have no need to go without shirts, wear muscle shirts in public, tight pants, short-shorts, either. If a man professes to know Jesus, he will also aspire to Christian modesty. Modest clothing will also not reflect any extreme in style or extravagance.

Modesty is a Christian discipline that Christians grow into. I do not think that a woman is in "sin" if she continues to wear pants after being saved. I believe that most likely, given the nature of the design of women's pants, her pants are immodest. Sound, Christ centered, love focused, Christian teaching will bring to bear a desire to be more modest, and therefore the desire to wear skirts and dresses.

I'm against dangling women over Hell because of women's pants, makeup, jewelry, wedding bands, etc. I do believe that a woman will deepen her practice of Christian modesty as she matures in Christ. I think preachers who dangle women over Hell because of pants, makeup, etc., are just too lazy to engage in sensible, loving, and inspiring Christian teaching that is rooted directly in the New Testament. It's easier to tell someone they better line up or go to Hell because you don't have to explain anything. Nor do you have to answer any questions or think and consider other circumstances outside of the fundamentalist paradigm. And those who might have questions, or who might disagree at that moment must either line up, or they will face rejection from the body, be labeled rebellious, and eventually choose to leave. It's a lazy, cold, mechanical, and unloving way to rush the process of sanctification.

So, please don't think I oppose dress standards or Christian modesty. I just approach it differently.

Sin is failure to love God or others as one's self. Any number of actions from lying, to idolatry, to lust, to adultery, or even murder, are sin. Sin will hinder revival. Sin must be confessed, renounced, and repented of. Restitution should be made if applicable.

Worldliness is not only about wardrobe. It is how one identifies themselves. It is how one dresses the mind. If you identify as a 49ers fan, a Mason, a Republican, a Democrat, a given profession, a member of a given denomination, a holder of a given philosophy, a member of any given world religion, etc., etc., you're worldly. Your focus is on the world. Your identity is wrapped up in it. I know people who are more "United Pentecostal" or "ALJC" than they are like Christ. Their loyalty, motivations, interpretations, lifestyle, etc., is predicated upon their religious identity as it relates to the organization or church that they are a part of... and not Christ alone. Love of human org is a part of the pride of life. Pride over one's earthly religious tradition is worldliness, even if it is "modest", is pride over an idolatrous self identification. One's identity should be in... Christ alone.

What saddens me is that we've become so flagrantly prideful over our "Apostolic Identity" and earthly religious heritage and traditions that we look strangely at anyone who speaks of being identified with Christ alone. This should be a major red flag, but Satan has seduced us into this so very subtle trap to the point that even if someone tries to draw our attention to it... we fight them, denounce them, curse them, etc. Like trapped hostages who defend their desire to remain in a cell, we slam the door on any who would challenge us to leave the cell, screaming, "Get out!" This is a big hinderance to revival. Because people who are serious about needing a Savior don't want "Apostolic identity", they want... JESUS.

Lack of genuine love can also hinder revival. If you only "love" people for the sake of making them a member of some organization, or to put another notch on your "soul winner" belt, it isn't real love. It's treating people like trophies. If you don't care about their entire well being (physical, spiritual, emotional) it's only a love based on an expectation or desire that they comply with you. Now, the desire to see people enter the Kingdom of God isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the desire to win people to a human organization, tradition, or even a human pastor, this is a serious misdirection in focus. True love is patient, kind, and long suffering. It is personal. It is emotional. Many times we lambast folks with facts and polemics to win them through logic, but salvation is a emotional thing. It must be felt and experienced...it can't just be a cold and lifeless factoid. As the old saying goes, people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

Unbiblical traditions. These are sharks in the water that often feast on new souls that are born again. Most Americans have some Bible knowledge and come from a Christian tradition of this world. After repenting of sin, experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost with speaking in other tongues, after being water baptized in the name above all names, the name of Jesus... they begin to soak up everything like hungry little sponges wanting to know more about living for God in the light of this new and living experience. And that's when these sharks come in... If one has some knowledge of Scripture, or grows into the knowledge of Scripture, they will begin to notice a problem. They will begin to notice that in some churches many of our "standards" are not merely standards, they are "mandates", or "requirements" to maintain salvation. Now, this isn't a problem in and of itself if these mandates are found on the pages of Scripture staring back at them as they read them. However, if a standard/mandate/requirement isn't in Scripture... that's when the problem begins. They, being in love with their new experience in Christ, will either shift their loyalty and passion from Christ and the Word to our man made traditions of man... or they will begin asking questions and becoming frustrated and disenchanted with the mold being forced upon them. And if there isn't any Scripture to back up whatever radical claim being made, it all just begins to look cultic, legalistic, and no different from the Catholic Church or any other religion based on human traditions that have been raised up to being equal in authority to Scripture. You might as well mandate that men wear tin foil hats along with mandating that men be clean shaven to be saved... because both ideas are not in Scripture. It is at this point that knowledgeable new converts will disappear because of all the "man made rules"... or even seasoned saints will eventually feel they must leave to be loyal to Scripture because they oppose the traditions of men being taught as doctrine.

NOTE TO THE READERS

Some will try to discredit what I've said above by pointing to my personal politics that they might disagree with. Some will try to discredit what I've said by pointing to some personal character flaw. Some will try to discredit what I've said by pointing to some moral imperfection that I might bear. Some will try to discredit what I've said because I swear no loyalty to any human organization. Some will try to discredit what I've said because of some lack of performance in some area that they deem is important.

But don't let them trick you. Because when they do this, they make the discussion about me... only to distract you from seriously considering what I'm hoping to say. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. So, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of me personally. What matters is this...

Is what I'm saying "true"???

So, please don't allow them to distract you by personal attacks against me. Return to the details of what I've posted above. Evaluate them as they stand on their own merits.

While I am tragically flawed, and might be terribly imperfect in many ways... what I'm saying to you is the absolute truth as far I see and understand it.

Feel free to share your thoughts above what I've written. But if all you wish to do is to attack me personally, please go to the kiddie pool and play your foolish games there. lol

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Beards and dress standards aren't necessarily keeping us from revival. The way I see it is there are several things I can think of that are keeping us from revival. And it probably isn't limited to what I'm listing here. Here's my take on it:

1.) Sin
2.) Worldliness
3.) Pride/Elitism
4.) Lack of genuine love.
5.) Unbiblical traditions of men being taught as doctrine

I can agree with 1-4. I don't believe 5 has any bearing on God filling multitudes with the HG.

I was focusing on what MtD claimed:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I will go as far as to say I believe there WOULD BE A REVIVAL if Apostolics repented of the doctrines of men in the area of dress code.

Like teaching women are in sin by wearing their hair long...but not necessarily uncut.

Men with beards are rebellious, perhaps gay or drug users, and if not still not worthy to stand on the sacred platform.

If one would say revival is getting more people in Church just these two things IMO would bring tens of thousands of hungry believers in.

"Just these two things...would bring TENS OF THOUSANDS."

So I want to know why haven't some of these ex-A/P churches, who dumped dress codes and for a while still believed Oneness and New Birth, haven't had "tens of thousands" flooding their churches. Let me clarify, I know why it hasn't happened. It hasn't happened because it's a lie.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not against dress standards, because the Bible is clear about modesty. Anyone who would argue that I'm against dress standards is lying to you. Now, my idea of necessary dress standards might differ from some more strict sects in the Apostolic movement, but I do believe in dress standards. There's no need for low cut blouses, mini-skirts, tight women's jeans, sheer see-through clothing, etc. on women who profess to know Jesus. Solid biblical teaching will inspire women to aspire to biblical Christian modesty. Men have no need to go without shirts, wear muscle shirts in public, tight pants, short-shorts, either. If a man professes to know Jesus, he will also aspire to Christian modesty. Modest clothing will also not reflect any extreme in style or extravagance.

Good.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Modesty is a Christian discipline that Christians grow into. I do not think that a woman is in "sin" if she continues to wear pants after being saved. I believe that most likely, given the nature of the design of women's pants, her pants are immodest. Sound, Christ centered, love focused, Christian teaching will bring to bear a desire to be more modest, and therefore the desire to wear skirts and dresses.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm against dangling women over Hell because of women's pants, makeup, jewelry, wedding bands, etc. I do believe that a woman will deepen her practice of Christian modesty as she matures in Christ. I think preachers who dangle women over Hell because of pants, makeup, etc., are just too lazy to engage in sensible, loving, and inspiring Christian teaching that is rooted directly in the New Testament. It's easier to tell someone they better line up or go to Hell because you don't have to explain anything. Nor do you have to answer any questions or think and consider other circumstances outside of the fundamentalist paradigm. And those who might have questions, or who might disagree at that moment must either line up, or they will face rejection from the body, be labeled rebellious, and eventually choose to leave. It's a lazy, cold, mechanical, and unloving way to rush the process of sanctification.

Eh. I don't believe pointing fingers and screaming a new convert lady is going to split hell wide open for wearing pants, etc. Though, I honestly haven't had a Pastor who did this. Pastors I know have given sound, biblical teaching on modesty and dress.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, please don't think I oppose dress standards or Christian modesty. I just approach it differently.

Multifaceted?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sin is failure to love God or others as one's self. Any number of actions from lying, to idolatry, to lust, to adultery, or even murder, are sin. Sin will hinder revival. Sin must be confessed, renounced, and repented of. Restitution should be made if applicable.

"Sin can never enter there," so it stands to reason that sin would hinder people from receiving the HG.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Worldliness is not only about wardrobe. It is how one identifies themselves. It is how one dresses the mind. If you identify as a 49ers fan, a Mason, a Republican, a Democrat, a given profession, a member of a given denomination, a holder of a given philosophy, a member of any given world religion, etc., etc., you're worldly. Your focus is on the world. Your identity is wrapped up in it.

I agree worldliness is more than wardrobe. I don't agree that simply stating one is conservative or, let's say, libertarian means they're worldly. Are you worldly for identifying yourself as libertarian? I don't believe you are. I have a college football team of which I would say I am a fan. I don't believe it makes me worldly. Now, if any of these things become an idol, then absolutely it's worldliness.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know people who are more "United Pentecostal" or "ALJC" than they are like Christ. Their loyalty, motivations, interpretations, lifestyle, etc., is predicated upon their religious identity as it relates to the organization or church that they are a part of... and not Christ alone. Love of human org is a part of the pride of life. Pride over one's earthly religious tradition is worldliness, even if it is "modest", is pride over an idolatrous self identification. One's identity should be in... Christ alone.

Again, simply identifying one's self as a member of an organization is not being worldly. Making an idol of an organization is being worldly.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What saddens me is that we've become so flagrantly prideful over our "Apostolic Identity" and earthly religious heritage and traditions that we look strangely at anyone who speaks of being identified with Christ alone. This should be a major red flag, but Satan has seduced us into this so very subtle trap to the point that even if someone tries to draw our attention to it... we fight them, denounce them, curse them, etc. Like trapped hostages who defend their desire to remain in a cell, we slam the door on any who would challenge us to leave the cell, screaming, "Get out!" This is a big hinderance to revival. Because people who are serious about needing a Savior don't want "Apostolic identity", they want... JESUS.

What is "Apostolic identity" other than a person adhering to the Biblical plan of salvation and holiness and modesty in dress. And you say this is a big hindrance to revival??? Are there any churches which do not have this "Apostolic identity" and are having revival? I go back to MtD's claim that by just removing the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in. So where are these "tens of thousands?"

Originally Posted by Aquila

Lack of genuine love can also hinder revival. If you only "love" people for the sake of making them a member of some organization, or to put another notch on your "soul winner" belt, it isn't real love. It's treating people like trophies. If you don't care about their entire well being (physical, spiritual, emotional) it's only a love based on an expectation or desire that they comply with you. Now, the desire to see people enter the Kingdom of God isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the desire to win people to a human organization, tradition, or even a human pastor, this is a serious misdirection in focus. True love is patient, kind, and long suffering. It is personal. It is emotional. Many times we lambast folks with facts and polemics to win them through logic, but salvation is a emotional thing. It must be felt and experienced...it can't just be a cold and lifeless factoid. As the old saying goes, people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

First, let's address the part in bold: "salvation is a emotional thing." No, a thousand times no it is not. Salvation is not about I feelz. This isn't directed at you -- any person who believes salvation is emotional is likely someone who will have wild extremes in their walk with God. They will not walk by faith, but instead will be walking based on their feelz.

What is the seat of emotion? It's the heart. What does the Bible say about the heart? First, the heart is wicked and no one but God knows it. Also, "if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts...."

As far as loving people, yes we should love people.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Unbiblical traditions. These are sharks in the water that often feast on new souls that are born again. Most Americans have some Bible knowledge and come from a Christian tradition of this world. After repenting of sin, experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost with speaking in other tongues, after being water baptized in the name above all names, the name of Jesus... they begin to soak up everything like hungry little sponges wanting to know more about living for God in the light of this new and living experience. And that's when these sharks come in... If one has some knowledge of Scripture, or grows into the knowledge of Scripture, they will begin to notice a problem. They will begin to notice that in some churches many of our "standards" are not merely standards, they are "mandates", or "requirements" to maintain salvation. Now, this isn't a problem in and of itself if these mandates are found on the pages of Scripture staring back at them as they read them. However, if a standard/mandate/requirement isn't in Scripture... that's when the problem begins. They, being in love with their new experience in Christ, will either shift their loyalty and passion from Christ and the Word to our man made traditions of man... or they will begin asking questions and becoming frustrated and disenchanted with the mold being forced upon them. And if there isn't any Scripture to back up whatever radical claim being made, it all just begins to look cultic, legalistic, and no different from the Catholic Church or any other religion based on human traditions that have been raised up to being equal in authority to Scripture. You might as well mandate that men wear tin foil hats along with mandating that men be clean shaven to be saved... because both ideas are not in Scripture. It is at this point that knowledgeable new converts will disappear because of all the "man made rules"... or even seasoned saints will eventually feel they must leave to be loyal to Scripture because they oppose the traditions of men being taught as doctrine.

Not attacking you, just stating that you are passionate and biased against certain standards which may not be explicitly written in the Bible.

I don't know of any new convert, and I've known many in my lifetime, who has been upset over standards of dress or beards. What you're posting here just doesn't happen to new converts. It just doesn't. Now, later on in their walk, they could begin to get around bitter billy's who point to the Bible and beards or dress standards and complain that some of these things are explicitly written in the Bible.

But again, I know of no new converts who tripped over beards or dress standards.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is what I'm saying "true"???

Some things yes, some no.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I can agree with 1-4. I don't believe 5 has any bearing on God filling multitudes with the HG.

I was focusing on what MtD claimed:


"Just these two things...would bring TENS OF THOUSANDS."

So I want to know why haven't some of these ex-A/P churches, who dumped dress codes and for a while still believed Oneness and New Birth, haven't had "tens of thousands" flooding their churches. Let me clarify, I know why it hasn't happened. It hasn't happened because it's a lie.

I'm not sure about the claim of "tens of thousands". I do know quite a few men who simply prefer a beard would feel far more welcome at church, and would attend with little problem if the beard issue was dropped. Men choose to wear a beard for many reasons. And not all of those reasons are rooted in sin. Sometimes it's just a preference, like long sleeves verses short sleeves. I was in JROTC for four years prior to joining the Army after High School. So, throughout my high school years, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. When I joined the Army, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. In the UPCI churches I've attended, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. After leaving the institutional church (beards weren't a factor) a couple years passed and I grew a beard because Christina thought I should "update" my look. I've grown used to it. I have one of those faces that doesn't show my age (42). In my line of work I hold meetings and briefings with various government agencies. What's strange is, I'm treated more seriously, and with more respect, when wearing a beard. I think my baby face tends to cause some to think differently of me. Not to mention, Christina loves my beard, so that's a big plus. Also, I was military for 8 years. When I was in, facial hair wasn't permitted. Sometimes when I'm clean shaven and look into the mirror, I see the man I used to be when I was in the military. When wearing a beard, I feel like I'm in the present. I know it's purely psychological, but it's true. Now the idea of a man tell me, being a grown man, that I have to shave just feels... insulting. Now, please understand, I know that in the vast majority of situations no insult is intended. But it feels somewhat degrading. I'm a grown man. Is he going to choose boxers over briefs for me? Is he going to tell me that I'm not allowed to stay out until after dark? It makes me uncomfortable. And when so much emphasis is put on it, and I see no Scripture for it, it makes me feel indignant. If God isn't offended at beards, why is this grown man telling other grown men that they have to shave or they've sinned? Aren't men of God bound by the Word of God? Are they permitted to add to it? Is the opinion of a single man, or the tradition of an organization, to be considered equally as authoritative as Scripture?

So, it feels unbiblical and spiritually immature. With everything going on in the world, why is there even a "beard standard"? It's just beyond me.

Good.

Okay.

Eh. I don't believe pointing fingers and screaming a new convert lady is going to split hell wide open for wearing pants, etc. Though, I honestly haven't had a Pastor who did this. Pastors I know have given sound, biblical teaching on modesty and dress.

I don't believe in doing that either. But in my time I've seen pastors preach that if a woman so much as puts on a pair of pants at any point, it is an "abomination" and that they will "bust Hell wide open" if they so much as put a pair of pajama pants on. I've also known pastors who treat it like I do, like it is a matter of modesty and Christian discipline that all should be expected to grow into. I'm a "little" more liberal with it. I'd tolerate uniform pants on women, if their profession required it. If a woman has a serious aversion to dresses or skirts for some reason, I'd take such concerns one at a time. And, I might tolerate pants on a woman given the reasoning. I knew a girl who brutally raped. She was wearing a dress that night. Ever since then, she's chosen to wear pants. She just doesn't feel safe unless dressed in jeans. I don't know if this is common or not, but it is one circumstance in which I'm not comfortable forcing the issue with her, given her circumstance. I'm not out to traumatize her. If I were a pastor, I'd not condemn her over pants. I might ask that her blouse, jacket, or shirt be long enough to cover her hips and backside though. And, that isn't abnormal. Most women who wear pants typically do that more times than not anyway. But that's just my approach.

Multifaceted?

Hey now! Watch it buddy...

"Sin can never enter there," so it stands to reason that sin would hinder people from receiving the HG.

I agree worldliness is more than wardrobe. I don't agree that simply stating one is conservative or, let's say, libertarian means they're worldly. Are you worldly for identifying yourself as libertarian? I don't believe you are. I have a college football team of which I would say I am a fan. I don't believe it makes me worldly. Now, if any of these things become an idol, then absolutely it's worldliness.

I can agree with that.

I think these things can become an idol when they take precedence over God and the things of God. Or when the position of an organization trumps what is clearly written, or adds to it. Or when our identification with these things bring us more into being conformed into their image than the image of Jesus. Some are more Republican than like Jesus. Some are more Democrat than like Jesus. Some are more 49ers fan than they are like Jesus. Some are more Methodist than they are like Jesus. Some more Catholic than they are like Jesus. And... I don't mean any insult... but many are more UPCI or "Apostolic" than they are like Jesus. When our identity is grounded in anything of this world, and we are conformed into its image and not the image of Christ, it is idolatry.

Again, simply identifying one's self as a member of an organization is not being worldly. Making an idol of an organization is being worldly.

Amen. As I said above... many are more conformed into the image of the UPCI or the image of the "Apostolic movement" than they are the image and likeness of Jesus.

What is "Apostolic identity" other than a person adhering to the Biblical plan of salvation and holiness and modesty in dress. And you say this is a big hindrance to revival??? Are there any churches which do not have this "Apostolic identity" and are having revival? I go back to MtD's claim that by just removing the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in. So where are these "tens of thousands?"

Modesty is a Christian teaching. So, at some level, there will always be a dress standard reflecting some measure of Christian modesty. But, when it comes to the beard prohibition in some churches... it's really just a single man's opinion, or the position of a given district, or organization. It really has nothing to do with the Bible or even "sin". I don't think it will bring in "tens of thousands", but I do believe that returning to Scripture could bring many home who have left, help those struggling with the unbiblical traditions come to peace of mind, and perhaps prevent new converts from becoming disenchanted should they turn to Scripture and discover that half of their "Christian lifestyle" is the tradition or opinion of men.

TO BE CONTINUED...