To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

I will say on any given day, I usually have atleast one purple/black finger nail, generally a thumb nail that I busted w a hammer!

You rebel.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

We are only discussing beards. Beards were always considered a positive in scripture. There should have NEVER been a ban on them.

Hippies wore beards. Dont wear beards.

Hollywood actors and Wall Street robbers wear suits. Should we wear suits?

See the hypocrisy of it?

First, it was not the ONLY thing being discussed. So you can save the bolded text for another time.

Second, yes, I don't agree with the logic. That serial killer was adopted, therefore adoption leads to serial killing. Bravo, you pointed out some flawed logic. I'll search the garage for a trophy to mail you.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue isnt the propriety of male facial hair, or lack thereof.


The issue is the extent of a man's authority over other men, and which paradigm of authority is to operate in the church: the secular paradigm? Or the Biblical?

Regardless of the reasoning behind "the ban," the question I have asked is in the same vein as Bro. Esaias' question: does local leadership have the right to run their operation as they please or is a Biblical mandate necessary? Is that really such a tangent from the last dozen pages that it can't be answered here?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Regardless of the reasoning behind "the ban," the question I have asked is in the same vein as Bro. Esaias' question: does local leadership have the right to run their operation as they please or is a Biblical mandate necessary? Is that really such a tangent from the last dozen pages that it can't be answered here?

This verse: [Heb 13:17 NASB] 17 Obey your leaders and submit [to them,] for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

The greek word "Obey" here is not the same "obey" used for "children obey your parents". The greek word on Heb 13:17 means "be persuaded" literally. In other words, let your overseers persuade you, or just "listen to them". However persuading comes with an expectation that you must bring reasonable arguments to convince the listeners. You can't just say "put your cloth in the hamper because I say so" as you do with your kids.

The greek word "submit" in there is used only once in the NT and it is in there, and it means to submit in a context of a combat, like in "to put your guns down and surrender". The way I see it there is to not fight back to the elders with your own ideas or methods dividing the Church. You know when people disagree, you have two reactions: you let it go and shrug, or you fight back and start a campaign against the ideas or methods you disagree with.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Brother we are talking about beards, but in general, you would need to distinguish between holiness standards as an application of biblical principles to be practiced 24/7, and the reasonable expectation to have an appropriate appearance for the occasion (e.g. come to church clean shaved and with a neutral color suit so we can use it in public speaking or music).

I may ask you to come always to church clean shaved and in a neutral color suit so I can use you if I need help, but I won't tell you that it is a biblical principle an so you should go to the grocery store with a neutral color suit and clean shaved. The point we are debating is that some people see the "clean shaved" thing as a biblical principles to be practiced all the days of the week.

Are the thread police out in full force this morning or what?

I'll leave it more specific then: why don't the elders have the right to ask for clean shaven-ness from those who want to be in leadership roles? Let me grant you that the logic is faulty, has no biblical basis, and is simply the preference of the elders. I'm asking for any reason other than someone not liking it or finding it unnecessary.

For the record, I have a beard and have never had a pastor or other elder tell the congregation to refrain from having facial hair. I'm genuinely asking if the elders are actually WRONG for having such rules.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by coksiw

...

The greek word "submit" in there is used only once in the NT and it is in there, and it means to submit in a context of a combat, like in "to put your guns down and surrender". The way I see it there is to not fight back to the elders with your own ideas or methods dividing the Church. You know when people disagree, you have two reactions: you let it go and shrug, or you fight back and start a campaign against the ideas or methods you disagree with.

So wouldn't this include a beard prohibition?

=====================

Thank you very much for the response, by the way. I appreciate it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

My intention was not to mislead the post my intention was to show that people will do it for their jobs, sports ect but not for the glory of God.

Okay. I've actually used the same argument in the past, though not as for the "glory of God." How is shaving for the glory of God?

Employers require a lot of things the church cannot or should not. We shouldn't be pointing to employer requirements as a basis for church standards. There are employers which require females to wear pants instead of skirts/dresses. Are you going to allow bifurcated garments on females since some employers require it?

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Why because you don’t agree with the stand?

No, because it's the truth, especially when there are personal preferences preached as church standards (facial hair, colored dress shirts, etc).

This reminds me of a Pastor I once knew and assisted. There was a young man in the youth group who struggled, but had a heart and desire for God. The youth staff and I mentored him and he was doing well. One struggle was that he wanted to play football in HS and, as a result, would miss youth services during football season. Early in his Sr year of HS, he came to me and expressed his desire to attend Bible School and get involved in ministry. I was overjoyed. All the prayers and mentoring had made a huge difference in his life.

I went to the Pastor with the news, expecting him to be as excited as we were.

He was not. He told me in no uncertain terms that he would not sign the application for the young man to attend. He didn't approve of the young man playing football. I was shocked.

Before the midweek service, he asked the young man to meet with him in his office. The look on the young man's face as that Pastor told him he refused to sign his application was heartbreaking.

That was the final straw for me. There were several other things prior to this with which I didn't agree. I voiced my concern with the Pastor, we had a very heated argument over it and I resigned and left that church.

The young man graduated HS, still in church, still living for God. Instead of going to bible school, he went to play football at a community college. It wasn't long after that he became part of the party scene and started drinking. He's far from God today.

I believe that Pastor will have to answer one day for the stumbling block he caused with that young man.

I believe the same of the Pastor who refuses to allow a man to serve because of facial hair.

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick: but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Someone who wears happy socks, outside of church, isnt allowed to get on the platform at your church?

EDIT: I searched "happy socks". Apparently Happysocks is a sock and underwear company from Sweden that makes goofy print socks. Their website is currently celebrating sodomite pride and the Stonewall Riots.

So, I agree with the happy socks standard.

Every single clothing company is celebrating pride month. You going to spin your own wool and cotton and make your own clothes? Either you're joining Aquila for nude breakfast, or your making your own clothes.

[n david]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Btw way nobody get on the platform at our church who has a bed head hair do, skinny pants, Mohawks, pink shirts , happy socks, ect ... in church or out of church

Skinny pants is a modesty issue. Mohawks is a modesty issue.

Pink shirts and happy socks is a classic example of standards run amok.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by n david

...
I believe that Pastor will have to answer one day for the stumbling block he caused with that young man.

I believe the same of the Pastor who refuses to allow a man to serve because of facial hair.

...

I'm sure all of my posts sounds like I am anti-beard, but I certainly am not. In fact, I think the fewer rules, the better, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around these concepts. Are you saying that if a pastor enforces rules that prohibit a man from singing in the choir because he has a beard, and that man stumbles, the pastor will be held accountable?

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by n david

Skinny pants is a modesty issue. Mohawks is a modesty issue.

Pink shirts and happy socks is a classic example of standards run amok.

Now that I've played the role of the local conservative, I'll play the role of the liberal heretic: Mohawks are a modesty issue? Too much scalp showing?