To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Correct. Introducing any rules or regulations in the church not found in the scripture is the slippery slope to popish catholicism. The issue with a slippery slope, why they are so dangerous, is not the slide down to whatever level. It's that once you've slid down, you can't get back up the slope to where you started once you've realized your error.

Introduce just one, even small or seemingly insignificant extra-Biblical rule or regulation and see where it takes you. Rome and the Vatican are the shining examples of that fallout. You might not think it matters, but the church is to be glorious, without even a spot or mere wrinkle in her garments when she is presented to the Lord.

Imagine being presented to a king and he dismisses you from his presence because he detects the very hint of something wrong with just a tiny part of your clothing. Those are the spots and blemishes from which the church must be washed.

Jude calls people who continue to introduce such things as "spots on your feasts of charity" (Jude 1:12). Simon refers to such men like so, that they "...shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you..." (2 Peter 2:13). These uses of the word "spot" in such instances are either related to, or are the exact same word as used by Paul in Ephesians 5:27.

Therefore anyone who would bring spots upon the church in the name of ecclesiastical authority is by Biblical definition those who sport themselves with their own deceivings, that is, they are false.

And one aspect of those personal deceivings is believing you can add to, and mingle with, the Word of God the commandments of men and think you're going to be okay with the Most High. Such mingling is the very literal definition of the word confusion, which, from Latin, means to "to mix with" (con = with, fuse = mix, as in to "fuse" together). God is not the author of man-made ideas and doctrines being mixed into His Holy Word. We are.



I personally wouldn't much care. But then again, we have no platforms, no extra-Biblical mandates, like someone standing on a platform preaching to a passive audience of spectators, either.



What is leadership? We are all priests of the Most High God. Everyone is called to serve and be an example, to represent Jesus Christ to the absolute fullest sense, however much anyone is able at any given time. If that isn't leadership, what is?

But apart from that, as a man sows, that shall he also reap. If he wants mouth and tongue cancer and likes the idea of dying young in that regard, to his own master he rises or falls. While I find smokeless tobacco unpalatable, even gross, I wouldn't judge the man or write him off. The content of his words, the spirit, and manner of their expression, and how much they line up with the Truth matter more to me than whether or not he might occasionally have a wad of tabacky in his gob.

And precisely because there is no verse of Scripture condemning him for such use. Find me a verse of Scripture that condemns smokeless tobacco and I will condemn it, too. But if not, then not.

So you dont believe there is leadership within the Church? Elders, deacons, Bishops, Pastors, etc? Do leaders "have the rule over you"? Who are you submitted to if not to leadership?
Are you not allowed to place things within the categories of "such like" as in Galatians 5:21.
How do you define sin? is it a list?

[derAlte]

At a macro level, I agree that every God-called pastor, must, in the fear of God, be very careful about instituting requirements upon God’s people that are extra-Biblical. It is a frightening thing when a simple reaction to a current cultural trend becomes a hard and fast “standard” that must be adhered to long after the original threat to the spiritual well-being of the church has passed.

Appeals to tradition aren’t good enough. Everything we do must be grounded in the Word. Why do some want to keep folks doing things that God doesn’t require in the Scripture? I think there is an element of fear in some leaders, and not just in the church, that subconsciously drives them into an almost sociopathic addiction to being in control. These can really cause some damage. They tell you they love you one minute and then stab you in the back the next in their insatiable quest to rule the roost. Fortunately, in my experience, these are few and far between. But I have seen a few of these, when they lost a power struggle, abandon their ethics and Christian virtues because their vision was blinded by a giant root of bitterness. Some men don’t handle the loss of power well. They have to be in control. If they’re not, someone is going to get hurt!

Pastoral ministry are required to be stewards of the mysteries of God. They are to lead the people by example. The thoughts and values of our Great God are revealed with nuance as He dealt with the folks in both the Old & New Testaments. It is the ministry’s job to bring the eternal values of God to the people by preaching and teaching who with free will chose to either obey them or disregard them (to their peril). These values clash with the current culture more and more it seems. A trumpet must be blown betimes. Sometimes folks don’t like the sound of it. Why would any preacher in his right mind want to preach more than the Bible teaches? There’s plenty to cover without adding to it!
There is such a profound undercurrent of disrespect for ministry in this fin du monde age we are currently enduring. Especially among those who have had a sour experience with preachers, it seems awfully easy to turn all ministers into cartoon-character villains who are prone to abuse power. In my experience, most of the ministers I’ve met over the last four decades are humble people trying to follow God and please Him.

Just because someone preaches and teaches a doctrine you don’t think is in the Bible isn’t a sufficient reason to blithely accuse them of spiritual adultery. Really now! Adultery? They may have some really good reasons for teaching and preaching what they preach. Can you give a brother the benefit of the doubt? It seems awfully flippant to accuse faithful men who are trying their level best to please God by passing on the faith once delivered to the saints of spiritual adultery.

It is so easy to think of preachers as “the man.” It’s like they aren’t really human beings and brothers in Christ. It’s seems normal to treat ‘em like garbage because they are supposed to be able to take it. You might not agree with a stand taken, but have you really every stopped and tried to understand the real human being the preacher is, why he’s taking this stand?

Once you truly understand, you may find that he has a good reason for what he is doing. Or, you may discover that he doesn’t. His true reason for a certain stand may not be pure. I have yet to meet a perfect human being (other than the Lord Jesus Christ). Some men feel they have a sacred duty to pass on the faith as was given to them back in the 1960s and that means every little quirky custom of Lyndon Johnson-era, Bible-Belt, North American Pentecost. They don’t understand that the eternal truths (Oneness of God, the New Birth, Water Baptism in Jesus’ Name) are not the same as certain responses to cultural trends such as the prohibition of facial hair on men.

Some pastors are afraid of what their ministering brethren will think of them if they don’t stand for said 1960s Pentecost and so insist on things because of simple peer pressure. Some men may be so egotistical they cannot distinguish between their personal preferences or convictions and the revealed principles of the Biblical will of God. Some guys may read the Scriptures and honestly come up with different interpretations than yours because of their background, education, upbringing, and prejudices.

At a micro level, we need to be slow to carelessly judge everyone and everything through the stark black & white lenses of our personal prejudices. Spiritual adultery is real. There are ministers committing this sin today. But I think we’d better be slow in flinging around accusations of spiritual adultery when we, as flawed human beings, don’t have the perspective that God does in order to judge. Before doing so, we must, in the fear of God, with slowness and deliberation with the wise, be sure we are in the Book.

[Esaias]

We probably should put consideration of any "new regulations" on hold until we've gotten what is actually mandated in Scripture down pat first. Seems a lot of people are too quick to put the cart before the horse?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We probably should put consideration of any "new regulations" on hold until we've gotten what is actually mandated in Scripture down pat first. Seems a lot of people are too quick to put the cart before the horse?

[diakonos]

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

So you dont believe there is leadership within the Church? Elders, deacons, Bishops, Pastors, etc? Do leaders "have the rule over you"? Who are you submitted to if not to leadership?
Are you not allowed to place things within the categories of "such like" as in Galatians 5:21.
How do you define sin? is it a list?

It is funny how quick we forget Jesus teaching by just one verse taken out of context or interpreted wrong.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

We don't find any of the apostles lording it over the church. Anywhere. Yet we see that kind of lording in most of our churches today. A concept that was started by Catholicism and kept by those in ministry today.

Even Paul when he list the things that are wrong he did not go as far as our ministers go and make up a list of tangible things, but only list things of spiritual nature.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

It is funny how quick we forget Jesus teaching by just one verse taken out of context or interpreted wrong.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

We don't find any of the apostles lording it over the church. Anywhere. Yet we see that kind of lording in most of our churches today. A concept that was started by Catholicism and kept by those in ministry today.

Even Paul when he list the things that are wrong he did not go as far as our ministers go and make up a list of tangible things, but only list things of spiritual nature.

Here is an example of the Apostles giving direct instruction:

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

They set this down as new "laws" for the Gentiles to follow.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Ehud

So then, you disagree with Bro. Burk?

There are parts I agree with, overall, and parts I do not. Something I do not agree with is:

How is an extra-Biblical standard going to help a church deal with a problem they are having that an actual Biblical standard isn't going to already solve?

The capacity to solve a problem without creating innumerable other problems is a very difficult thing. You add to that mix an extra-Biblical mandate and enforce it as a standard of the church, that the members are required to obey in order to be in good standing, regardless of the expected benefit, is just asking for trouble.

No matter how much one or a few people in leadership think their extra-Biblical mandate is going to make things better, the chances of that happening across the board and also not making anything worse is pretty slim. This is the slippery slope I mentioned. Add just one extra-Biblical thing, and the temptation to add another will inevitably show up. Count on it.

And then what? Who determines what really is and isn't a problem in the church? What if all members don't see it that way? Who gets to make the call? Why them and not others? And how can anyone know for sure that the problem can only and should only be solved with an extra-Biblical standard?

I remember reading on this very forum how several years ago, due to some famous preacher's end-time teaching, people were not getting married or if married, not having children, because of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 (his desire to remain as he was, and the present distress that was coming).

Now, this preacher may not have mandated such a choice for his audience, but the end result was the same. An intended solution to a perceived to be, but wasn't actually real, problem, didn't help anyone in the long run, it just messed with people's lives unnecessarily.

The fact is, you become beholden to obey whatever it is you practice. Any extra-Biblical standard that gets instituted into a church eventually becomes an institution in and of itself. You might hope that the problem you thought you were solving will eventually be revisited and everyone will be on board for making changes as the situation on the ground changes, but that's a pipedream. This beard, shave or no shave issue proves this is so. We're more than 40 years in and the issue is spiritually deadly in its level of contentiousness.

Had those brothers from long ago never made it an issue, it wouldn't be an issue now, and who would be the worse off? Likely no one. But instead, we've got a mountain of a problem out of a molehill of a "solution". All because some leaders went extra-Biblical on the church.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

So you dont believe there is leadership within the Church? Elders, deacons, Bishops, Pastors, etc? Do leaders "have the rule over you"? Who are you submitted to if not to leadership?
Are you not allowed to place things within the categories of "such like" as in Galatians 5:21.
How do you define sin? is it a list?

Why do you assume all these negative connotations about what I believe?

Anyway,

Yes, the Bible is replete with mention of elders, deacons, bishops, pastors, and etc. How these Biblical roles play out in the modern church, apostolic or otherwise, very rarely, in my view, play out how they are supposed to operate according to the Holy Scriptures.

But otherwise, what you mean by leadership, or by what I think you mean by leadership, in the church, no I don't think it is supposed to exist, as such.

There is a reason, a very good reason, why the NASB version of Matthew 23:10 reads the way it does. Check it out some time.

As far as who in the church has the "rule" over another man, that answer to that, Biblically is, no one. You are to rule yourself, and as a man, your family (Proverbs 16:32 and 1 Timothy 3:4). And the Lord Jesus, clearly, rules over all.

But otherwise, per your reference to Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Timothy 5:17, the use of the words rule over, or rule, are poorly chosen for translation.

Consider the KJV usage of the same English word in Mark 10:42. There, the Greek word is archein, meaning to rule with authority. Jesus said no one is to do such things among the believers. But in Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 1 Timothy 5:17, the Greek word is different. In those verses, the root verb is hegeomai and refers to those who are out in front, those who were in Christ before you, and through careful cultivation of mature Christ-likeness, have the ability to lead others into a deeper walk with God. These brethren should be heeded because of their example and their knowledge and grace regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, not because they have any authority over anyone. Paul even wrote that he had no "dominion" over anyone's faith (2 Corinthians 1:24).

The word for dominion there is kyrieuomen, rooted in the word kyrios, which is translated as Lord, as in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's the same Greek term used by Jesus in Luke 22:25 regarding how rulers of the Gentiles exercise dominion over those they rule, meaning, they have power and authority, which is to say, control, over the ones they rule. Jesus said it must not be so among us.

Finally, in regards to "such like" no, you are not allowed to fill in Paul's blank with whatever suits your fancy. If Paul wanted the thought expressed, he would have done so under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Rather, the "such like" is those things which are intimately related to the list of flesh works he gave there in Galatians 5:19-21.

Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). But where there is no law, there is no sin imputed (See Romans 5:13). And the law is Torah, or the full teachings and instructions given to us by God in the Holy Scriptures, so, if you cannot easily point to the Scriptures and see there a law that ought not to be broken, you cannot impute sin to someone if they speak or act in some fashion that cannot be proven to be against God or His Word.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We probably should put consideration of any "new regulations" on hold until we've gotten what is actually mandated in Scripture down pat first. Seems a lot of people are too quick to put the cart before the horse?

There's some sanity worth exploring!