To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[votivesoul]

(continued...)

Think about it clearly. Some men want to control what grows naturally from other men's faces. Facial hair is as natural and normal to men as desiring to get married and eat. If you would not forbid marriage or from eating, why in the world would you forbid a man from having facial hair, or severely curtail his ability to be a fully functioning priest in the Kingdom of God at the level of local church?

If a man wants to shave, that's his prerogative. Let him do as he pleases.

But if not, then let him do what he pleases.

Think of it this way:

Paul writes plainly that a husband doesn't have authority over his own body, nor the wife over hers, but each has authority over each other's, as it relates to the marriage bed. But when it comes to facial hair, another man has authority over another man's ANATOMY, regardless of the wife's disposition to facial hair, for example.

It is perverse. In the secular world, you can take or leave these standards at your leisure. Don't like them, don't sign up. But this isn't the secular world. This is the sacred church, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We've got it so backward.

Do you seriously view this example on the same plane as elders asking for clean shaven men in leadership?

This preacher's view caused men and women to surrender their God-given, God-ordained right to how they used their marriage bed and conceived children. His view, even unintentionally, interwove itself and intervened in the natural production of children.

To the degree that this occurred, it is vastly worse in scope, but in principle, it's the same thing. Go and see what being accused of being a busybody in other men's matters means.

My goodness, if we just had Bro. Benincasa's attitude and did it out of respect for our brethren, wouldn't all of these unintended consequences just melt away?

No.

If you simply can't do that, move on.

Did.

How can people bark about man-made standards to get on a man-made platform at a man-made church -- because WE are the REAL church -- with a straight face?

Those are only issues for churches which insist on having man-made platforms and man-made churches. I am not a member of such a man-made church, so I wouldn't know.

Simply move on down the road. Why fight and be contentious?

No one in my church contends over man-made standards, because we don't have any over which to contend. But this is a public forum where such views are welcome, to be shared, debated, rebuffed, and etc.

I don't go from assembly to assembly picking fights with people.

I see a lot of finger pointing at the stay-shaved folks, but the attitude of the beard folk leaves a lot to be desired. And are we seriously going to fault people for trying to be proactive? Your take seems to be it isn't a problem if it isn't a problem.

My take is, you are causing more problems by instituting man-made mandates. You can be proactive all you want, but if the Bible isn't enough, then not a single thing else will ever be sufficient for you.

Next time I'm cooking, I won't tell my daughter to stay away from the burner. I'll just keep some ointment on hand in case she burns herself.

That's pretty much what a man-made standard looks like in action. Instead of thorough teaching and instruction, just use some man-made salve to solve the problem after the fact. Hippies and weirdos started wearing beards to be counter-cultural, so let us all shave post fact to solve the problem of there being sinners in the world who want to cut across the grain of normal society.

After all, a potential problem isn't a real threat, only problem problems need attention, right?

What problems? Brother Burk gave a hypothetical scenario only. How about some actual problems churches have. List them off. And then show me how you have to go extra-Biblical to solve them.

Again, if you think the church you attend has leadership that is just north of cuckoo, MOVE ON. Don't sit around waiting for things to fester. Take a little responsibility and nip it in the bud. #barneyfife

This rhetoric is nice and all, but it doesn't accurately reflect the nature of the ground upon which I walk. I don't attend a church where I think the leadership is north of cuckoo, partly, or even mostly, because, we eschew man-made, extra-Biblical mandates and standards. Imagine, if a church did nothing else but at the very least not add to the Word of God or subtract from the Word of God, how wonderful that would be. If, for example, a doctor or physician, at the very least, first, did no harm, how much better off their patient would be, compared to the doctor or physician who meddles and goes outside the mandates of his profession in order to engage in quackery.

Yes, we have asked for men to stay out of the nursery because at any given time it is possible, though unlikely, that someone might be breastfeeding an infant. We hold this standard high and ask to be exalted for our observance of such.

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!

We also refuse to let a single individual teach in a Sunday school class. There are always at least two persons present for the safety of both the children and the teachers.

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.

Bow down to our extra-biblical-man-made rules and punch your ticket to heaven by having just a shred of decency and respect for those around you. This shave or no shave issue proves nothing other than people still have stinking rotten attitudes on both sides of the fight. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon either.

Listen. The matter is simple. Get rid of "extra-biblical-man-made rules". Then you never have to worry about bowing down to anything but Jesus Christ as Lord. And your ticket to heaven will stay nice and punched.

We have to quit assuming that every extra-biblical rule came with malicious intent.

Who cares about intent? Lots of good intentions everywhere. It doesn't matter. You go outside of God's Word, you've got nothing to hang onto but your own notions on how to get it done. Good luck with that.

The truth is, people are drawn away by their own lusts. These things take time. No one ever falls in a single moment. Look at the Greek text for "drawn away" in James 1:14. It means to lure away, as a fisherman or hunter lures away game. It's playing the long game. So, you come up with a man-made standard to solve a church problem. Most go along to get along, many even agree with it. Fine. Seems like a good thing at the time. AT THE TIME. But give it time, and the little calves grow up into GIGANTIC SACRED COWS that none dare slaughter without being accused of having "stinking attitudes".

I disagree with a mandate to be clean shaven. I believe it has been abused in some places, and anyone trying to put another in hell for not adhering to this rule should be ashamed of themselves. I am in no way trying to defend this particular rule.

So, what's the issue?

BUT, to fight against it by accusing them of being idolatrous whoremongers is only escalating the situation.

So is wishing that Judaizers who try to force Gentiles to be circumcized ought to castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12). In the grand scheme of things, it may seem that being able to shave or not at one's own discretion is one of the least of all issues. But it isn't. It is one of the most fundamental issues of all. Not the facial hair, or lack thereof. Who cares?

This is about Lordship. About headship. A line must be drawn somewhere. That line is the Holy Scriptures. If it isn't, then what is? The answer is obvious: the whims of man. That's Mystery Babylon defined. Consider Nimrod. His names means REBEL. You dare build up some religious institution all the way to heaven thinking you're doing God's work, guess what? God calls you "rebel". It doesn't work both ways. Why? Because such religious institutions are rightly called "Babel", which is to say "confusion". Who's in charge? Who gives the orders? Who has the final say? God, or someone else?

I don't see how such rhetoric is going to get a point across. To be honest, I feel the same way about abortion. To call pro-choice folks "baby killers" might be simply an accurate statement to the one presenting it, but all it does is turn off the target audience. So just keep it up. I've never seen a group so self-righteous about being biblically righteous in my entire life.

Why did the angel tell John Mystery Bablyon is called THE MOTHER OF ALL HARLOTS? Does that rhetoric not get the point across? Sometimes, too many times, people are in a terrible stupor of complicit, complacent, human-centered religion. Sometimes, a rhetorical device or flourish is all that will wake and shake someone up. There have been so many posts here at AFF that were full of rhetoric, that were at first hard to take, that pushed and challenged me. But I am better for them. My doctrinal understanding has been refined and helped immeasurably betimes because someone here made good use of, even explosive, in your face rhetoric.

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.

Bro. Hometown and Bro. Apostolic1ness have both stated they aren't putting bearded folks in hell. So if you want to discuss whether or not that is the "logical conclusion" of their stance, they would likely be willing to discuss the matter.

See n_david's posts in this thread.

But to anyone who would accuse them of turning the bride of Christ into their own personal whore, you are just as wrong as you think they are. I don't care if it was presented "with all the love of Jesus." To accuse brothers and sisters of such malicious things is only good for causing strife.

I did not accuse these two members of anything. I said, that if someone in the church is elevated to the level of an idol, so that his word is held in esteem over the Word of Christ, and the members of that church engage with him on that level, as an idol, that they, on the whole, are committing idolatry, which is spiritual whoredoms with what is supposed to be the Bride of the Anointed One.

Does that accusation hit the mark? I have no idea. But the witness it preaches is true all the same.