Should Christians Wear Facial Hair?

Among conservative apostolics in the United States this has been a major issue since the 60's.  Friendships have been broken, fellowships have been divided, sinners have been turned away, new converts have been offended and salvation of fellow believers has been questioned.  All of this over a contemporary issue that is purely a response to a cultural issue.  All of this over facial hair which scripture universally approves of.

DID JESUS HAVE FACIAL HAIR?

I will answer this question and give the reasons why I think that the answer is yes.  However, this is an unnecessary though important question.  Even if Jesus did not wear a beard, it is evident in scripture that Godly men did and it is never condemned by scripture.  The more relevant question is do the scriptures condemn facial hair? "For where there is no law there is no transgression of the law" (Romans 4:14).

I believe that Jesus had facial hair because he fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17), and the law forbade the shaving of the corners of the beard (Leviticus 19:27).  Some would argue that this only applies IF you have a beard.  This misses the point as it is not a matter of if a man has a beard; all men baring some sort of birth or health defect has a beard.  Even when he shaves the beard is still there.  All shaving does is shorten the beard it does not get rid of it.  Every man has a beard, it is only a matter of how long it is.  So in essence Leviticus 19:27 prohibits shaving and is therefore a command to have a beard.  To the Jew facial hair was/is a matter of creational holiness.  To the Jew facial hair is God reflecting in the man his own masculine image. So since Jesus fulfilled the law, and the law prohibited shaving the corners of the beard, then Jesus must have had a beard.

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY


 A Christian is certainly at liberty to wear facial hair because the scriptures do not forbid it.  At this point in American culture, I do not think it is even unwise to have facial hair.  What may be unwise it a particular style of facial hair.  Facial hair, like head hair, can reflect certain worldly agendas within our culture and those  styles should be avoided. Just because certain styles of head hair can reflect a worldly image does not mean that we demand men to shave their head hair off.

Two examples that prove that a man can wear facial hair in such away that it does not reflect a worldly cultural agenda are the Jews and the Amish.  Both of these religious groups continued to wear their beards throughout the cultural revolution of the 60's and never got confused with the hippies.  The reason they were not is three-fold: 1. They had different style beards than the hippies. 2. They had different style dress than the hippies. 3. They had a drastically different lifestyle than the hippies.  These three distinctions allowed them to have facial hair and not be confused with the cultural repugnance of the hippie, free love movement.

With what the no facial hair doctrine has become, and looking back in retrospect, it was a bad decision to ever start preaching against facial hair in the first place. Someone along the line it shifted from a response to a temporary and contemporary issue to an issue of justification.  This is what is so dangerous about starting to preach and command things that scripture does not command.

The Danger of "Spirit-Led" Standard Setting

In recent conversations I observed as several (ultra) conservative  preachers began to defend a spirit-led approach to preaching standards.  This was particularly suggested in the context of standards that admittedly have no scriptural support.  They were using verses like "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," and "keep His commandments, AND do those things that are pleasing in His sight."  


Their point is that you don't need scripture to preach a standard.  It must also be noted that by preach they mean: "Essential compliance by all members of the congregation at the risk of being in rebellion to the pastor, and therefore God, and resulting in being lost."  I do not need to point out the incredible danger of this sort of ill-logic; it is THE recipe for Pharisaism.

There are a number of inherent flaws in this model:

1. There is no objective basis for it's conclusions.  It is based solely on the sanctified sentiments of self, and that is not spiritual but carnal.  An "I feel" approach to setting standards of separation and conduct facilitates a church culture where "every man is right in his own eyes."  This subjective model becomes premise on which we feel justified to judge our brother for holding a different and lesser standard.  After all, if he was a spiritual as me then he would preach against "X," and the reason that he doesn't is because he is carnal and does not pray.  Anyone who is praying knows that God does no approve of that.  Or, as is often said: "You don't have the same Holy Ghost that I do if you don't preach against X."

2.  It will inevitably lead to Pharisaism.  It will always lead to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Men will inevitably began to bind the consciences and faith of Christians to their personal preferences.  No man has the authority to do that.

3. It is flawed in its hermeneutic; it misunderstands these passages.  Acts 15:28 says in reflection: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."  But was that the only premise upon which the decision was made?  The answer is, no!  Acts 15:15 & 19 was the premise: "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the apostles because it was written.  Jesus plainly said that the Holy Spirit would teach what He himself had taught (John 14:26).  Being spiritual does not mean that you do not need bible for what you bind on God's people.  The word itself is spirit and life (John 6:63).  If you want to be truly spiritual in your judgments then preach the word, nothing more and nothing less.

Response to Jewelry and God's People: The Idolatry of Jewelry by G. Reckart

Jewelry and God's People
The Idolatry Of Jewelry

by Pastor G.Reckart

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: (1Peter 3:3-5).”

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works (1Timothy 2:9-10).”

1 Timothy 2:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 are both examples of the not only-but also idiom. The not only-but also idiom portrays relative emphasis.  It is used to show how two concepts relate to one another and emphasizes the one over the other.  Many times in scripture when the Bible says not this, but this, it is not prohibiting the “not”, but emphasizing the importance of the “but” over the “not.” 

The way this is demonstrated is by adding “only” after “not,” and “also” after “but.”  In most of the not-but passages doing this brings clarity and the intended meaning to the text.  While this idiom has Hebraic origins, there are a number of verses that demonstrates this use of language still prevalent in the time of Christ and the Apostles.  It has been argued that the New Testament text cannot be used to support a Hebrew figure of speech; that figures of speech rarely translate from one language to another. 

This, however, is simply not true.  E.W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, says, “In the New Testament, while the language is Greek, the thoughts are Hebrew; so that the Hebrew methods of comparison are frequently adopted…”[1]  So, the Hebrew idiom that was prevalent in the Old Testament remains alive in the New Testament. 

“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”   John 6:27

Certainly one would not imagine that Jesus is prohibiting laboring for natural food.  This would contradict the Biblical command to work for food (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).  He is simply stating that our emphasis ought to be on spiritual food more than natural food.  The idiom here would say, “Labour not (ONLY) for the meat which perisheth, but (ALSO) for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life”

“Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. 13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:” Luke 14:12-13

It would be absurd to understand Jesus’ words to mean that one is prohibited from inviting friends, family, or rich neighbours over to your house for a dinner or a supper.  We would all be in violation of that each Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner held in our homes. 

Jesus is not saying that we must invite someone who is poor, maimed, lame or blind every time we have a dinner, but he is simply saying that we should not have dinners and suppers and never invite the less fortunate.  It is saying that we should not invite family ONLY, but the poor ALSO.

“My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”  The idiom here would say, “My little children, let us not love (ONLY) in word, neither in tongue; but (ALSO) in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18

A literal reading of this text would prohibit one from saying, “I love you.”  It cannot be understood in this manner; but rather that showing love is superior to reducing love to mere lip service.

---

[1] E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, (London, New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J.B. Young & Co, 1898), 532  See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/10488338/Figures-Of-Speech-Used-In-The-Bible-Bullinger, retrieved December 12, 2009

These Scriptures forbid the following:

Plaiting the hair.
Wearing of gold.
Wearing pearls.

Wearing costly array or apparel.

So, it does not forbid: silver, platinum, wood, brass, aluminum or many base materials that jewelry is made from?  Is Reckhart going to add to the word of God and prohibit more that what the bible does?

They encourage the following:

The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit
Being in subjection into their own husbands
Adorn themselves in modest apparel
Adorn themselves with shamefacedness and sobriety
Women professing Godliness
Women with good works

Obviously what is prohibited and forbidden may not be included under that which is encouraged!

Indeed, but those items are not prohibited.

The question here is: why would the Apostles command us not to do these things if there was no sin in doing them? 

He did not forbid them.

The answer must be, that the Apostles saw these as worldly evils that have no place in the life of a Christian. A study of jewelry through history, gives us insight, on why these Apostles saw evil and sin in this practice.

We shall look for Reckart's proofs. 

Idols were decorated with gem stones, rings, bracelets, neck chains, ankle ornaments, leg ornaments, chains, nose jewels, hoods, veils, earrings, nose rings, and carefully painted faces. Anyone may examine these idols in museums to verify these facts. The worshipers of these idols made themselves like unto these idols.

The priest were also covered at the command of God with gemstones, gold and chains (Exodus 28).  How many veils do you see worn by godly women in the Old Testament?  Just do a word search on vail (s) and veil (s).  Simple really.  

Rebekah wore earrings and nose rings (Genesis 24).  Joseph wore a gold neck chain (Genesis 41:42). God put chains on the neck of Israel (Ezekiel 16:11).  These are all example of the blessing and favor of God upon his people.  Just because the pagans abuse items does not mean that they are sinful in every context.

There are many things in scripture that are abused and lead to evil, that Reckart does not forbid.  One of them is money.  Do I need to go through scripture and quote all the verses where money is spoken of in a negative light?

With cosmetics and jewelry, they changed themselves from the image of God into the image of idols.

This does not prove that all usages of Jewelry are evil.  The idols are also pictured as doing many things that are acceptable to do: eat, have sex, marry and the list could go on and on.  This proves nothing. 

The prohibition of idolatry alone would suffice to declare that wearing jewelry and face cosmetics are wrong.

How does Reckart reconcile the bejeweled priesthood (Exodus 28)?  How does Reckart reconcile the bejeweled brides of scripture (Isaiah 61:10; Jeremiah 2:32)?  

Apostolics have suffered mockery, abuse, and persecution, because we follow the Scriptures and do not wear jewelry.

No, It was because we ignorantly misunderstood these passages.

Many feel we are making a lot to do about nothing. Is idolatry nothing? Is rebellion against the Apostle's Doctrine acceptable? Is idolatry and all associated with it not sin? Should we adorn ourselves after the likeness of idols, and decorate our bodies after the image of male and female gods?

No one would suggest that we rebel against the Apostle's doctrine and Reckhart knows that.  The issue is, what was the Apostle's doctrine on this matter?  

The answer is, no.  Not everything associated with idolatry is sin.  1 Corinthians 8 makes it perfectly clear that "an idol is nothing in the world and there is no God but one."  On this basis eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin.  A great parallel between jewelry and meat sacrificed to idols is Paul's use of Psalm 24:1: "The earth is the lord's and the fullness thereof (1 Corinthians 10:26-28)."  Even though the meat had been used in idol worship it still belonged to the lord; likewise the gold and jewels, though they have been used in idol worship, were created by God and still belong to God.  The idol is none existent and did not create the gold.  Reckart can argue all he wants that we adapted the use of jewelry from the idols, but the idols got it from God.  We should refuse to let their misuse keep us from its proper use.  No, we should not adorn ourselves after the likeness of idols and for the purposes of idolatry.  I am by no mean insinuating that we should deck from head to toe with jewelry.  1 Timothy and 1 Peter both teach moderation. 

The Scriptures above come to us from two notable Apostles, Peter and Paul. Both are in agreement that those professing Godliness should not wear jewelry.

This is an absurd misuse of those texts as I stated above.

The Apostolic Messianic Fellowship will follow these Apostles. Those still in bondage to idolatry, will make excuses why they will disobey Peter and Paul and wear jewelry anyway. Those who are Pentecostal will make the argument that it's a matter of opinion or personal conviction, while Apostolics believe it a matter of Scripture and Godliness.

I, too, believe that it is a matter of scripture and not opinion, which I why I reject Reckart's teaching on this subject.  Actually Reckart is the one that is in bondage to idolatry, he is the one who still has conscience toward the idol.  He is the one who exalts the idol to something when it is nothing.  There is only one god and the idol is not him.  The God of the bible created the gold, silver and precious stones.  To argue that God created jewerly but did not intend for man to wear it is again to miss the point.  To argue that is to ignore many passages of scriptures concerning the priests.  The 24 elders wear golden crowns (Revelation 4:4).  Jesus has a golden girdle (Revelation 1:13) and a golden crown (Revelation 14:14).

There is a difference between being Pentecostal and being Apostolic!

I won't be sidetracked with this silly and arbitrary distinction. 

We believe and follow the Scriptures as our rule of conduct, our procedure of practice, and governing our acts of faith. A true Christian will not wear jewelry.

Peter exhorts women, in the matter of wearing jewelry, to adorn themselves like the holy old testament women that trusted in God did.  Ask holy Rebekah who trusted God's providence in giving her to wife to Isaac (Genesis 24).

The Apostles lived in a pagan world, exactly as we have today. By pagan, we mean those who still worship and follow the customs of idol worship. There are few idols of the ancient world still worshiped today. The idols and gods of our day come from Hollywood movies, television, and the music industry. Worshipers will dress like these idols, talk like these idols, act like these idols, fix their hair like these idols, paint their face like these idols, wear the jewelry these idols wear, dance before these idols, shout and scream before these idols, mutilate their bodies unto these idols, burn incense and surround themselves with smoke and fire before these idols, wear the clothes these idols wear, and follow the sexual apostasy of these idols. The television, movie, and music industry, have largely replaced old gods and idols, but nevertheless as idols, substitute the true God, and the holiness example with depravity. These all play a vital part in demonstrating the debauchery with which jewelry is worn in idol worship.Although God forbid mutilating the body, marking it with holes, cuts, and tattoos, they do it anyway. Should we allow these evils among us?

“And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them (2Kings 17:15).”

The heathens of the world would like to bring their 5,000 year old idol traditions into the Church of the living God. It is remarkable to note, that God did not design or permit the Priest in the Old Testament to wear finger rings, earrings, bracelets, or ornaments around the neck, as worn by the priest of pagan idols.

While they did not "wear finger rings, earrings, bracelets, or ornaments around the neck, AS worn by the priests of pagan idols,"  they were practically covered in gold and jewels.  If Reckart had honestly presented the facts, he would have pointed this out.  The best that he can prove with this argument is that both wore gold and jewels, just in different ways and with different purposes. 

The Priest of God were representatives of God. Therefore, we may rightly claim, that God denied the Priesthood resembling the false priest and idols the heathens served.

But Reckart cannot deny that God's holy priest wore gold and jewels (Exodus 28).

The Priest and people of God did not wear these ornaments, because they were ways used to serve idols. In the same manner, Christians and Jews dressed in Godly apparel, and this was holiness unto the LORD.

Maybe Reckart should note what else was HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD: And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD (Exodus 39:30).  The priest wears a golden crown with the words "HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD" on it, which destroys the false concept that holiness demands the absence of gold and jewelry. 

It follows succinctly then, that Jesus Christ did not wear bodily ornaments in the form of finger rings, earrings, bracelets, or neck ornaments, in his office of the Supreme High Priest.

But He would have worn all the other gold and jewels of the priesthood.

Jewelry carries with it not only the history of idols but the idea of amulets containing magic spirits. An amulet is an item that is alleged to contain spirit powers that protect the person wearing it. The magic power is a demon spirit or a devil-god, in whose image the amulet bears testimony.

Amulets had incantations performed over them, so that all who wore replicas of them, received the protection of that spirit or god. Thus, wearing these symbols, gave testimony an individual was a believer and worshiper of those protective spirits and gods. At no time, did the true God ever borrow these magic rites and symbols unto himself and his Chosen people. No one can separate the association of magic, spirits, and other gods from jewelry. The meaning is quite clear. God's people do not pick up the traditions of idolatry to decorate their bodies.

This is absurd beyond words.  If the association of magic, spirits, and other god's cannot be separated from jewelry, then what was God thinking when he decked Israel with jewelry (Ezekiel 169-14)?  Did God sin?  I will not take the time to show the myriad of places that Gods people wore jewelry, and the myriad of places that jewelry has a positive connotation. 

It was a practice among heathens to make cuts in their body, mark their flesh in various manners, and to wear jewelry that once belonged to a dead loved one. Passing these pagan charms, magic relics, or jewelry down in the family, became a tradition. One had to mark themselves after the manner of a dead loved one, in order to wear what the departed had worn in life.

“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:28).”

Obviously we should not cut ourselves or print marks on our body for the dead.  But God's people, at His command, did cut the flesh; it was called circumcision.  God's people did cut their flesh, but they did not do it in the way the heathen did, or for the purpose for which the heathen did. 

Cutting the flesh includes the making of holes in one's ears and nose.

How about the love slave who would have his ear pierced through with an aul (Exodus 21:6)?  They cut and pierced their flesh, but just not for the reason the heathen did. Reckart must also address Rebekah's piercings in Genesis 24.

Making marks includes tattoos or other scars where the creation of the human body is distorted and altered from the image of God, in which likeness it was created. As such, these rings, earrings, bracelets, and neck ornaments, became heirlooms. Many would rather repeat the sins of an ancestor, than to admit their ancestors were in violation of the First Commandment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exodus 20:3-4).

Agreed.

If the people of God were forbidden to have other gods, and to make any form of a graven image representing these idols or their magic powers, then the original wearing of jewelry is a practice of idolatry. If God's people did not wear them, and if the Priest did not wear them in the Tabernacle, they of necessity came from man's inventions of idols, or of some other man-made fetish or devil-god.

There are Scriptures that prove the wearing of jewelry was considered pagan and a violation of the ways of God. Jacob made his wives give him all their jewelry. He buried them under an oak tree. He knew if his father saw Rachel and Leah in this idolatry, he would receive a rebuking. Much more, he knew he was going back to Bethel, and the God of his fathers did not approve of the wearing of earrings, jewelry, and possession of idols, magic charms, and amulets:

If his God did not approve of wearing earrings and jewelry why did he give them to Israel (Ezekiel 16)?

“And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem (Genesis 35:3-4).”

Obviously these were being used in false worship, but not all earrings and jewelry was ( Genesis 24; Ezekiel 16).

Bethel is translated "House of God." The vision of the ladder and the angels, is a direct Revelation of Jesus Christ (St. John 1:51). It behooved Jacob then, to present his wives to God at Bethel, in a holiness condition, that had no connection to paganism or idolatry. He took their strange gods and the earrings which had to have an idolatrous connection, and buried them forever. Now they could go to Bethel and home to Jacob's father Isaac, as women of God. There is no record that these matriarchs ever desired to have these idols back, or went back to wearing earrings and other jewelry.

There are plenty records of God's people wearing jewelry after this event.

I know of no one who would deny that these were the Church, the elect, the called out ones, of that day. There was no reason for Jacob to make his wives give up their jewelry if it was not a sin. If these women could give up these pagan inventions for God without the Holy Ghost, what should Christians do today with the Holy Ghost? Our bodies are the Temple of God (1Corinthians 3:17). Has anyone ever produced the Scripture where the Tabernacle in the Old Testament had any form or likeness of jewelry upon the exterior of it in any fashion?

No, but we are also priest, and the priest certainly had jewels on the outside (Exodus 28). 

The ring to the left was found in Babylon. It is that of the serpent of Eden. The serpent with tail in its mouth, came to form the circle of finger and earrings. The circle in jewelry symbolism, means eternal. Wedding rings come from this idolatry and still carry the meaning of "forever" today. Wearing a ring is to adorn a symbol of satan, even if the serpent is removed, to hide the meaning behind the symbol.

This just reveals the novice approach of Reckart to this issue.  The wearing of the ring by the prodigal son in the Gospels was surely not a symbol of satan, it was a symbol of the acceptance and favor of the Father. 

The spirits of demons embodied in jewelry usually take the form of rebellion. This is the first attitude a person will manifest, who has the jewelry spirits upon them, when told it is not Godliness or Holiness to wear it. Those with the Holy Ghost, and who love truth and Godliness, do not have those possessing spirits, and off the jewelry comes with joy. Those controlled by the jewelry spirits will argue, fight, quit church, and refuse to take their jewelry off, in honor of their body being a Temple of God. They have the opinion that God will have them with jewelry, or they will find another Church where the spirits there, accept it. These individuals believe they can reject the Bible record, history of jewelry, and the admonitions of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and still be saved?

Just because someone has the courage of their conviction does not mean that they have a demon spirit of rebellion.  What if I commanded Reckart to stop wearing something that the bible did not tell him to stop wearing, do you think that he would argue with me about it?  Would this mean that he had a demon spirit of rebellion?

To our knowledge, the Jews that went down into Egypt (70 souls), did not wear jewelry.

"To your knowledge?"  That just means that Reckart does not know.  This is a flawed argument from silence. 

They picked up this custom during the four hundred years of exposure to Egyptian idols, while in Egyptian slavery. Jacob made his wives take their jewelry off. We need more husbands like this today, and more wives who will take it off without demanding a divorce. Israelites took back up the wearing of jewelry before they came out of Egypt. 

Need I remind Reckart that they wore the jewely out of Egypt by the command of God (Exodus 3:18-22).

 "...but each woman shall ask of her neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewelry, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians."

Exodus 3:22 ESV

It was with these ornaments, that Aaron made a golden calf. It was with this jewelry, that the Jewish nation was almost wiped off the earth in God's anger (Exodus 32:9-10). Earrings were worn by Ishmaelites (Judges 8:24). Holes in a person's ears was a sign of slavery (Deuteronomy 15:17).

Having the ear pierced with an aul was not a sign of slavery, it was a sign of service.  They had served their course of slavery and was freed, but chose willingly to stay and serve out of love for the master.  It was more a sign of freedom than slavery. 

“For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb (Exodus 33:5-6).”

There are many things is scripture that Israel laid aside in times of backsliding.  This was a time of repentance and morning and sacrifice.  I ask the reader and Reckart to go through the Old Testament and show all the things that Israel backslide and played the harlot with.

The Jews removed their jewelry for a number of years and then went back and picked it up again. With jewelry comes a proud look and a haughty attitude. This Jezebel spirit (2KIngs 9:30) caused Israel to be cast off to Babylon. God became very angry at the Jewish women who went back to the ways of false gods and idols. Read what God said he would do about it:

“Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails (Isaiah 3:16-23).”

With out going into detail about what all these individual items were, I will point out two apparent items that God is going to take away from Israel, that Reckart very clearly does not. 

1. God is going to smite with scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and give them baldness.  Does Reckart demand the women in his church to be bald?

2. God is going to discover their secret parts, which mean He is going take their clothes and make them naked.  Surely Reckart does not preach this as a standard?

The beauty of holiness is the fresh and pure creation of God without decorating it with that which comes from worship of idols. Look at the world; look at the perverts of television, movies, and music; look at those marketing jewelry, these all bear testimony that God is not in it. When we raise holy hands before the LORD, there will be no jewelry on either hand or wrist. When we give our body, mind, and soul, unto the LORD, there is no longer a place for jewelry to testify of idols. This is Godliness. This is Holiness. This proves the Temple of God has no agreement with idols (1Cor. 6:16).

This information explains why converts to Christ and members of the Apostolic Faith are urged not to wear jewelry. The Pastor will not baptize anyone wearing jewelry or those who intend to put it back on after baptism. No Minister may preach in our services, that wears jewelry. Membership in the Church is open to all, but we believe the Spirit will lead and guide all to give up jewelry.

Jesus House
11731 N. 15th Street
Tampa, Florida 33612

© Copyright All Rights Reserved

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/jewelry.html

Did Chancy Gore Just Prove Shaving is Catholic?

“The Encyclopedia Britannica points out that “the clergy of the Roman obedience shaved clean, as have done the pope for two centuries and more.”” Pg. 26

“A prominent bishop of the time had such feelings against facial hair that he compared bearded men of the Norman-English court with “filthy goats and bristley Saracens”” Pg. 26

“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries bearded popes were the subject of strange and bitter controversy.  Henry I, in an attempt to revive beards, was denounced by the bishop of Sees so forcibly that the king and his courtiers consented to have their beards removed in church by the bishops own shears.”  Pg. 27

“The Picture of a twelfth century prophet from a sculpture in a cathedral in Bomberg, Germany portrays a clean-shaven fashion as was pronounced and enforced by Pope Anacletus (1130-1138) upon “literal authority of scripture.”” Pg. 33

“Some bishops preached the Gospel of the razor, proclaiming that the wearer of facial hair took after goats “whose filthy lasciviousness is shamefully imitated by fornicators and sodomites.”” Pg. 33

“The council of Limoger that shaving provided the clergy with a necessary “distinction” This Council ordered all clergymen within its jurisdiction to shave.  The same year the Council of Bourges followed its example” Pg. 33

“Pope Gregory was a great enemy of facial hair. He maintained that any priest who wore a beard was guilty of a serious crime. Reynolds notes that “in 1703 he [Pope Gregory] called a council where a canon against priestly beards was among the decisions made. In 1119, a council in Toulhouse went so far as to threaten with excommunication clerics who let their hair and beards grow. Pope Alexander III is quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907, Vol. II, p. 363) as saying “that such priest were to be shorn forcibly, if necessary, by the archdeacon.”  This was a ruling later incorporated into the canon law along with other decrees of Pope Gregory IX.” Pg. 33-34

“In 1550 Robert Cenalis, who was the bishop of Auranches, ordained fines for members of the chapter who failed to present themselves “freshly shaven” at a council” Pg. 36

Response to The Question of Rings by Pastor Dan Mena

THE QUESTION OF RINGS

By Pastor Daniel Mena

The subject of jewelry, which includes all ornaments, even rings, must be approached first of all with a sweet spirit. Truth never has to lower itself to a hard or unkind approach. Truth always manifests the fruit of the Spirit; one of which is gentleness. One of the proofs of Truth is the kind and Christ-like spirit it portrays. lt does not return railing for railing because it is the nature of him who, when he was reviled, he reviled not again.

I agree. 

I would like to begin this article with a quote from Bro. James Kilgore, the Assistant General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church.

Neither Bro. James Kilgore nor the United Pentecostal Church is the standard for what is true, only the scripture.

"As to the origination of rings, history says that they were worn as ornaments on the fingers, in the ears, in the nose, and around the wrists and ankles. I would have to conclude that wearing jewelry is not really the image or the ornament of a Christian Spirit."

Bro. Kilgore does not specifically address wedding bands in this quote.  I do not know what the larger context of this quote is, but Bro. Kilgore as a member of the United Pentecostal church fellowshipped on every level many United Pentecostals who wore wedding bands, unlike the author of this article. 

There are good folks who try to contend that the wedding ring is not classified as jewelry. If rings are not jewelry, then why must a person go to a jewelry store or jewelry department to purchase them?

This same sentence could be said of wrist watches, which Mena allows in his church.  Watches are indeed jewelry themselves.  They are by definition, bracelets.    

Ask any sinner if rings are considered jewelry; they will answer in the affirmative. Almost every dictionary in the land will define rings under the category of jewelry. World Book Encyclopedia, page 95 under jewelry states, "Jewelry includes: rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, brooches, and various ornaments for the hair."

 

Ask those same sinners if they consider the wearing of jewelry is sinful or immoral; they will answer in the negative.  Does Mena now accept that they are not sinful because sinners do not think they are?

I will concede that a ring is jewelry, as Mena must do about wrist watches; however the more pertinent issue is whether jewelry is sinful according to scripture. 

In no instance in Holy Scripture, neither by priest, prophet or apostle, was the marriage vows solemnized by the putting on of a ring. God performed the first wedding in the garden of Eden, and no where can we find that he married Adam and Eve with rings. If it did not originate in the scriptures, then where did it come from?

The modern wedding band was not a part of the culture of the Old or New Testaments; however, bridal jewelry was (Genesis 24; Isaiah 61:10; Jeremiah 2:32; Revelation 21:2).  These passages were conveniently overlooked.

The editor of the Daily Tribune, Bay City, Texas, wrote on page 10, in the June 22, 1962 edition: Re "Wedding Rings" - The romantic tradition of giving a ring stems from what seems to be a barbaric custom. - The author then credited Pope Innocent the 3rd as the originator of the wedding ring, in the celebration of marriage in the church.

Where is the "unnamed" editors proof?  He makes a claim and cites no sources.  If he is right, all it would prove is that Pope Innocent III was the originator of the wedding ring in the Catholic church.  The scriptures, which is older and superior to Innocent III, teaches that jewelry had bridal significance.  Besides, all the sources that I quote in my response to Chancy Gore's Facial Hair: A Christian Perspective would go even further in proving that the Catholics are the originator is preaching against facial hair, which Mena does vociferously.  Sometimes Popes are right and sometimes they are wrong, but what doe the scriptures say? 

The Apostle Paul in his discourse on marriage, never made mention about rings being used to symbolize the marriage ordinance.

They also never mentioned: wedding dress, church weddings, Justice of the Peace weddings, honeymoons, bride and groom kissing to symbolize the marriage ordinance or any of the other many customs that we practice.  Many of these other customs may be traceable to the Catholic church as well, but it makes no difference.

Neither Paul or any other Apostle taught or advocated the wearing of jewelry for any occasion, but, you would almost think by the strong, gospel-like stand some men take in defence of this type of ornamentation, that they had.

Indeed they did.  Peter, in 1 Peter 3:5, tells New Testament women that they should adorn themselves as like the holy women (plural) in old times did.  The Old Testament is replete with holy women who wore jewelry (Genesis 24).  

Do we have any Biblical support for this custom? The answer is NO! You would almost think there was a Romans 17:1, reading something like this: "I the Apostle Paul, have received another commandment from the Lord, that when you are married, you put on rings to show the world you are married." Neither Jesus, or his disciples ever taught the wearing of a wedding ring.

Not the wedding ring per se, but certainly for bridal jewelry as cited in passages above.  The bigger issue is they did not condemn it either.  There are many things related to the marriage ceremony that neither Jesus nor the Apostles commanded or taught us to do.

You say, "l don't wear a wedding ring, but my wife does. "Why don't you?" Some could interpret what you are saying as to mean; "l don't want men looking at my wife - but I don't mind if women look at me as being available." If this is not the case, could it be that down inside your heart you are convicted that it is wrong, and would feel totally uncomfortable with one on?

There could be any number of other reasons why a man may do this.  To narrow it down to these two options is unfair and dishonest.

The Bride of Christ, in the book of Revelation did not wear a ring to show she was a bride. She wore fine linen, clean and white; which was the righteousness of the Saints. However, the great whore, who was drunk with the blood of the saints, was decked with gold, precious stones and pearls.

The Bride of Christ did not wear a ring, but she did wear bridal jewelry.  The new Jerusalem was a "bride adorned for her husband" (Revelation 21:2).  This is clearly drawn from Isaiah 61:10, Jeremiah 2:32 and other passages that speak approvingly of brides being adorned with jewels.  

The new Jerusalem was "the bride the lamb's wife" (Revelation 21:9-10). How was the new and holy Jerusalem pictured?  She was adorned with precious jewels (Revelation 21:19-20; she was adorned with 12 pearls (Revelation 21:21); she was adorned with Gold (Revelation 21:21).

All the items of the whore can be found either on the priest's garment or in priestly sacrifice.  This was to identify the whore as the Old Jerusalem.  The contrast is between an old and new covenant bride.  None of the things the whore wore was sinful.  This was not the point of the passage.  It was not to condemn what she was wearing, rather to identify who she was.

God has taught us a very true yet painful lesson that cost us men and time. The battle did not have to take as long as it did, but some within our ranks were still afraid to drive the sword into Agag. Even today, there are places where the sniper fire can still be heard on the fringes. The lesson God had to teach us was, "Godly Consistency" - in other words, you have no voice, no volume, no momentum to preach against T.V. if you preach on T.V. or advertise on it. You have lost the case through the legal loophole of inconsistency. I am afraid we are coming to another battlefield where we must learn the same principle, only through another issue. 

T.V. is not the point I want to respond to.  Besides this is just an illustration. 

You have no power, authority, strength or credibility to preach against jewelry if you still allow certain kinds in the church.

By this admission Mena would have no credibility since he allows wrist watches, which is a form of jewelry.

Your consistency will be challenged. T.V. is either all wrong or all right. Time has proven - you cannot compromise with the Devil. If you are not 100% against it, in time, you will be 100% for it. You cannot remain static, the overwhelming pressure will pull you like a vacuum. Naturally speaking, the tree always falls in the direction it leans. Someone said . . .

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen, yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, them embrace.

You cannot allow wedding rings in the church and ever win the battle against jewelry. If we are blind to our own state of inconsistency, the world is not. We have joined hands with ROME, in using a Biblically condemned ornament to symbolize God ordained ordinance.

This is dishonest and untrue on the surface.  There are scores of church that for decades have allowed watches and wedding rings and no other forms of jewelry.  The author of this thread knows that is the case. 

Let's be honest with ourselves. The same scriptures that we use to preach against earrings, bracelets and necklaces, also condemn rings. If you are going to make an exception to God's rule and accept one as being justified and right, then fairness and consistency demand you accept all as alright.

Many would make this same argument about watches.  There are no exceptions being made. Jewelry is nowhere condemned in scripture.

Some have pulled their finger out of the dike and wonder why the world is coming in. Remember!, T.V. almost took us into the SEA!

. . . wedding band yes, but engagement ring no! Why not? You have got just as much scripture to allow the engagement ring as the wedding ring. If reason is placed in the judgement seat and allowed a louder voice than scripture, you must be fair. Well, where do you draw the line? Yes, that is what everyone is asking.

Listen. . . FRIENDSHIP RING stands up to present her case. Oh! it is emotional and as moving as the engagement ring. Next. . . COLLEGE CLASS RING; the debate is hot and heavy, but due to much research and scholarship and remembering the long hours of study and mental discipline, he has won reason over to his right to exist and live in the camp of the redeemed. Next. standing in the long court aisle is MR. TIE CLASP with a bulging briefcase of reasons and arguments. Next. . . Oh yes! MR. CUFF LINK and MRS. BETTY BROOCH and behind them the door opens and ALAS! the hallway is filled, down the steps and out into the street. . . NECKLACES, BRACELETS, EARRINGS, ANKLE BRACELETS, PINS, TRINKETS, NOSE RINGS, GLISTENING PEARLS, SPARKLING DIAMONDS, and GLITTERING JEWELS of all manner from New York, Paris, London, Africa, India, Europe and Asia; they all want entry into the Church of the Living God. Remember, they are all relatives; if you let mother in, she will pull in the whole family sooner or later. The next generation will use our "exception" (compromise) as their license and the wind will become the whirlwind. 

Let's not forget the watches...:)  None of these items are inherently sinful (Genesis 24). 

BUT LISTEN . . .
LET HISTORY HAVE HER SAY!

"Rings Through The Ages" - Author James McCarthy devotes an entire chapter to the practice of "Dactyliomancy." This is the practice of divination by means of finger rings. He further states, ASTROLOGY, CRYSTALLOMANCY, SORCERY, NECROMANCY, CONJURATION, INCANTATION and ENCHANTMENT were all part of this practice.

Margaret Blake in her book "Wedding Customs and Folklore," states "Wedding rings are also important in divination."

"The Wedding Day in All Ages and Countries" - author Edward Wood, writes - "The Christian church doubtless adopted the wedding ring from the pagans of Italy, as a convenient sign of marriage." He further states, "The Quakers reject the use of a ring in their weddings because of its heathenish origin, and during the time of the Commonwealth, the Puritans endeavored to abolish the use of the wedding ring, for the reason that it was of pagan invention." On page 221 he writes, "In Ireland the use of a gold ring is superstitiously required." The author quotes from the old Salisbury Manual on page 219, as to the purpose of the third finger being selected for the ring. The bridegroom was to receive the ring from the priest, then holding the right hand of the bride, he was to say, "With this ring I thee wed." He was then to place the ring on her left-hand thumb, and say, "In the name of the Father"; then on the first finger, and say, "And the Son," then on the second finger, and say, "And the Holy Ghost," and finally on the third finger, and say, "Amen," where it was to remain.

I am certain that Mena does not condemn all things with pagan histories and origins. The pagan and Catholic arguments are as circular as the rings he despises.

Some holiness people will denounce rings worn on the ears as worldly and sinful, and rightfully so; but let a woman remove the two gold rings from her ears and place them on the third finger of her left hand and they now conclude it as acceptable.

Well, thanks for admitting that they are "holiness people."  So, let's play a little jewelry relocation game: Mena will argue that a band with clock on it around the finger is sinful, but let a person remove the band with a clock on it an put it around the wrist and he will now conclude that it is acceptable.  See, how two can play at that game?

In other words, gold rings worn on the ears are a sin but by being transferred to the finger, it ceases to become sin.

A watch worn around the finger is a sin but by being transferred to the wrist, it ceases to become sin. 

Is it just the location on the body that determines the sin?

Great question: Is it?

Someone says, "I'm embarrassed not to wear a ring, I'm afraid someone will think I am living in adultery." What do you wear to prove to the world that you are a Christian? (Bride of Christ). You say, "Nothing, my life and my testimony show the world that I am a Christian." The same should hold true in a marriage. Two people should live in such respectable fidelity that the world can tell by their conduct that they are married and if there is ever a question, wouldn't their marriage license settle all doubt? Remember also, in Luke 2:1-7, God didn't care what the world thought about Mary being with child. In our present generation, thousands of unmarried common-law couples wear rings which actually prove nothing.

How does Mena know that Mary did not have bridal jewelry?  Bridal jewelry was common practice for Israel's brides (Genesis 24; Isaiah 61:10; Jeremiah 2:32).  There are many things about the espousal of Mary and Joseph that we do not know.  It is never conclusive to make an argument from silence. 

While Mena may not care what the world thinks about how is wife is viewed without a wedding band, he relies solely on what the world and culture has to say about facial hair.  The scriptures are loaded with examples of Godly men wearing facial hair and he allows culture to persuade him to do other wise, even in the face of Leviticus 19:27 commanding men not to shave.

If you can truthfully say you see nothing wrong with an engagement and wedding ring, then prove it to yourself by this simple test. Attach your wife's engagement ring and wedding ring to each of her ears and then let her sing a solo behind the pulpit on Sunday night. You say, "I could never do that. . . Why? You say, . . . it becomes jewelry then." If they don't convict you as being wrong then the location should not matter.

You do the same test with the watch, take it off and put it on a ring or necklace, both of which one can purchase so this is not hypothetical.  Location should not matter!

I Timothy 2:9, says, "That the women adorn themselves, - not with gold. '' The scripture does not make allowance for any special location. You say, "It's the reason behind it that causes me to accept the wedding ring and reject the earring." My friend, let me kindly ask you one question; is the reason based on Scripture or Custom? When Custom comes into conflict with scripture, which do we obey? The Apostles said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

On what reason does Mena base his views on facial hair: custom or scripture?  He condemns in others what he himself does. 

Child of God, can't you see we are dealing with a major principle and not a minor issue? For too many years customs have blindfolded us to consistent Bible Holiness. We have taken a scripturally condemned ornament and used it as a symbol for a Biblical ordinance. This is confusion twice confounded. The prophet said, "The customs of the heathen are vain."

Some say, "You are wanting to destroy my marriage when you preach against wedding rings." The beautiful God-given ordinance of marriage was around thousands of years before Pope Innocent Ill decreed every couple should wear a ring, it is a love for God and each other that keeps the marriage together, not a ring.

But bridal jewelry goes all the way back to Genesis 24.  It is a love for God and each other that keeps the marriage together, not the marriage license; yet, we are allowed to proudly display that where ever we like. 

I Corinthians 14: 37, If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 

I agree.

What was one of the commandments of the Apostle Paul? I Tim. 2:9, That women adorn themselves --not with GOLD. Who among us is spiritual enough to change that commandment? 1 Peter 3:3, Let it not be the outward adorning of -- wearing of gold --. Deuteronomy 7:25, -- thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is ON THEM, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an ABOMINATION to the Lord thy God. Numbers 31:50, "We have therefore brought an oblation for the Lord, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the Lord."

1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 are both using the not only but also idiom.  Mena understands it well in following verse.  This same principle is in many verse, but I will cite only one. 

"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18 KJV  

John commands us not to love in word or tongue.  Using Mena's hermeneutic approach to these jewelry texts he would have to forbid telling people that you love them.  However, he understands that John is teaching that we NOT ONLY love in word an tongue, BUT ALSO deed and truth. Same, principle says: "Don't let what adorns you be ONLY gold and pearls, BUT ALSO a meek and a quiet spirit."

Using a literal and legalistic approach to these texts they only condemn gold and pearls: what if the ring is not gold or the necklace is not pearl.  What if a person wears a brass or wooden ring? 

Much, much more could be said here, but space or time does not allow.

Some have fallen into the ditch of the "Impossible Choice", they will say, "l would rather have my ring than a bad spirit." You cannot choose the lesser of two wrongs and come out right. We must stand against jewelry with a sweet yet firm spirit.

How about the third option of having a good spirit and not forbidding all jewelry, because the bible does not?

 You will never make the weak strong by weakening the strong. I quote from Elder B.E. Echols tract, "The jewelry controversy", Page 2, "And when the people heard these evil tidings (of verse 30) they MOURNED (and some church folks today do a lot of mourning, grumbling, or complaining when they think they may have to part with those dear wedding-bands, golden cuff buttons and flashy tie clasps, secret society rings and pins, etc.); and no man did put on his ornaments."

???

 This is exactly how it should be with us Pentecostal believers today. God does not want His holy people decked with jewelry LIKE THE WORLD (Tit. 2:11-14 with I Tim. 2:7-9) AND THE DEVIL (Ezekiel 28:11-15).

If our old pioneers preached like that; should we not listen and take heed? Years ago I sat and listened as Sis. S.G. Norris, told about a time in the early days of Pentecost when the Spirit of the Lord moved upon her. She related that during a worship service she reached down and pulled off her expensive wedding ring and put it in the missionary offering. Is this not what happened to Israel in Exodus 35:22? "And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered an offering of gold unto the Lord."

Because someone gave sacrificially it should become law and a standard?  Why just stop with wedding rings?  Why not get really sacrificial like Acts 4:32 where they had "all things common"?


The Exodus 35:22 passage does more than demonstrate a sacrificial offering of giving jewelry to the Lord, it also necessarily presupposes that they had jewelry to give.  Why did they have it?  What did they do with it?  I think you know the obvious answer.

Thousands of people observed as the beautiful "Spirit of Holiness (Rom. 1:4) swept the final service of the General Conference of the United Pentecostal Church, October 4, 1981 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. After a stirring message by Bro. James Kilgore touching on the subject of sacrificing for the Gospel's Sake; numerous Gold Wedding Rings and Diamonds were removed and consecrated to be sold to send missionary families across the world to preach the Gospel. With this beautiful spirit, we can evangelize the world before Jesus Comes."

The same thing can be accomplished by selling many things, not just diamonds.  This does nothing to address the issue of whether or not the scriptures condemn wearing jewelry.

.... let us lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us,. . .Heb. 12:1.

Who gets to decide what the weights are?  Only scripture gets to decide what the sins are, and scripture does not condemn the wearing of jewelry.

. . press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Ph. 3:1

We are all pressing for this, even the wedding ring wearers.

With Love to all,

Pastor Mena

A Response to Facial Hair: A Christian Perspective by Chancy Gore Part 3 (Chapter 2a)

The majority of this chapter is spent demonstrating that one culture promoted shaving and another culture promoted facial hair.  Gore points out the acceptance of facial hair within certain cultures was based on class, political or religious variance.  Within each of these parameters there was a wide range of acceptance and rejection.

While that makes for interesting history it really is of no consequence whatsoever to the issue that confronts the 21^st century church.  How is it perceived now, and can it be worn by Christians is such a way as to not hinder our testimony?  These are the questions that we ought to be asking.  Also, how far are we willing to acquiesce to culture?  Should we be affecting culture or should we as Christians be held hostage by culture? 

It is amazing to me that this hyper sensitivity to culture that is expressed on this issue is completely suppressed when it comes to certain other issues.   We pick and chose when culture is relevant to an issue.  It is argued that facial hair hinders our testimony.  This is becoming increasing untrue; however, there are many other non-essential things that hinder our acceptance in culture that we stubbornly refuse to change.  The cultural argument is always one of personal convenience.

One of the most unusual aspects of this book is the use of Catholic tradition by an Apostolic in a book title Facial Hair: A Christian Perspective.  Since when does Catholic tradition have any bearing on what shapes Christian perspective for an Apostolic preacher?

“The Encyclopedia Britannica points out that “the clergy of the Roman obedience shaved clean, as have done the pope for two centuries and more.”” Pg. 26

“A prominent bishop of the time had such feelings against facial hair that he compared bearded men of the Norman-English court with “filthy goats and bristley Saracens”” Pg. 26

“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries bearded popes were the subject of strange and bitter controversy.  Henry I, in an attempt to revive beards, was denounced by the bishop of Sees so forcibly that the king and his courtiers consented to have their beards removed in church by the bishops own shears.”  Pg. 27

“The Picture of a twelfth century prophet from a sculpture in a cathedral in Bomberg, Germany portrays a clean-shaven fashion as was pronounced and enforced by Pope Anacletus (1130-1138) upon “literal authority of scripture.”” Pg. 33

“Some bishops preached the Gospel of the razor, proclaiming that the wearer of facial hair took after goats “whose filthy lasciviousness is shamefully imitated by fornicators and sodomites.”” Pg. 33

“The council of Limoger that shaving provided the clergy with a necessary “distinction” This Council ordered all clergymen within its jurisdiction to shave.  The same year the Council of Bourges followed its example” Pg. 33

“Pope Gregory was a great enemy of facial hair. He maintained that any priest who wore a beard was guilty of a serious crime. Reynolds notes that “in 1703 he [Pope Gregory] called a council where a canon against priestly beards was among the decisions made. In 1119, a council in Toulhouse went so far as to threaten with excommunication clerics who let their hair and beards grow. Pope Alexander III is quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907, Vol. II, p. 363) as saying “that such priest were to be shorn forcibly, if necessary, by the archdeacon.”  This was a ruling later incorporated into the canon law along with other decrees of Pope Gregory IX.” Pg. 33-34

“In 1550 Robert Cenalis, who was the bishop of Auranches, ordained fines for members of the chapter who failed to present themselves “freshly shaven” at a council” Pg. 36

There are many things that could be pointed out from these quotes, but suffice to say that Catholic councils, canons and traditions mean nothing to true Apostolics.  How often would Gore, and many other Apostolic preachers, point to Catholic canon, councils and/or tradition as proof that we should not do some things: Wedding rings, baptismal formula ect... What is interesting to point out is the similarity of the attitude of papal authority that exists between modern Apostolic preachers and the Catholic bishops and popes of the past.    

                                  

Summary

Gore goes on to list 10 items in summary:

1.      Facial hair has at times been recognized as a sign of Manhood.

“This view has its basis in pride, to say the least.” Pg. 38

Rarely will you find a more flawed argument than, “it is prideful.”  There are many things that we do, both secular and religious, that always lead to pride, yet we do not condemn.  The pride argument is a fluid and unreliable test of whether something is acceptable.  In fact, it could very well be argued that an insistence on shaving is rooted in pride.

I know people who argue that women should not shave their legs because it is rooted in pride.  Some have argued that we should not wear cologne because it is rooted in pride.  Some that I have met have argued that preachers should not wear suit coats and neck ties because they are rooted in pride.  Do you see how impractical and unreliable that such an argument can be?

“Are all men who do not or cannot grow a beard either because they are light-haired, or because of their nationality (such as American Indians and many African tribes), not true men?  Will they never reach true manhood unless they grow a beard or moustache? Of course, our answer is a resounding no!” Pg. 38

Gore offers not proof of any Indians who cannot grow facial hair.  What he alludes to is that American Indians many times do not grow thick, long, full beards; however, they can hair on their face.  As far as the “light-haired” men, they too grow hair on their face, although it is not as highly visible due to color.

Secondly, let’s assume for a moment that there are some men who can grow no facial hair whatsoever.  What would that prove? Nothing!  What about women, who for whatever reason cannot grow hair?  Do we now say that the women who can grow hair should not?  We all see the absurdity of that reasoning.  Do we say that the women who cannot grow hair are not under subjection to their head (husbands) according to Paul’s teaching?  Of course, our answer is a resounding no!

2.     Facial hair has often been associated with man’s strength.

“Again this view proves to be faulty thinking.  If such association had merit, then all those participants in Greek and Roman Olympics, in order to be noted as strong would have had a beard and mustache – but they shaved smooth.  Galatians 5:1 instructs the believer to be strong in the Lord and the power of His might.” Pg. 38

This may or may not be a valid argument for facial hair, if this is a true representation of the actually argument that is made.  I think that it misses the point slightly.  The “manhood” argument is usually framed in terms of “masculinity/sexual distinction” rather than “strength.”  While strength varies from man to man, masculinity and sexual distinction should not.  I will deal with this in more detail in response to, Common arguments for facial hair, 8. & 9. on page 62

Gore says that we are to be strong in the Lord.  Does this mean that we are to ONLY be strong in the Lord?  Certainly not!  The scriptures praise the physical, and not just spiritual, strength of men (Proverbs 20:29; 1 John 2:14).

3.      Facial hair has been worn because of vogue or fashion.

“The Christian is not to follow after the world, nor be “conformed to the world” (fit its mold or fashions)…”

See 5.

4.     Facial hair is of no use except for self-ornamentation.

Another absurd, unsubstantiated claim made by Gore. 

·         Beards do keep you warmer in the winter.[1]

·         Beards serve as an external sign of masculine sexual distinction.  Beards, even more than short hair which women can easily mimic, is the best external sign of a masculinity.  It is the rare occasion that a woman naturally grows a beard.  This alone is a significant practical reason to have a beard.  The beard reflects the masculine image of God in which man was created.

Secondly: Gore would have to prove that ornamentation is wrong for this argument to have any validity.

5.     Popular figures and leaders of society usually set the fashion in facial hair.

“Again, God’s people are not to follow the world in all its fashions, whether set forth by its leaders or their own acquaintances.” Pg. 39

Gore sets himself up here for a major contradiction.  He is arguing that we should not follow society’s leaders in setting our fashions, and then turns around in the next chapter (chapter 3) and uses the leaders of society and popular figures as reasons we should not have facial hair.

“It might be helpful to look at facial hair in the secular business world. In the fast-paced business society that we live in, image is a most precious thing.  Along with a good name and reputation, an honest, profession and clean image is very important to the businessman.  Owners and managers often feel that facial hair is unprofessional and lacks the clean image desired.  Many large corporations will not even hire people that have a moustache or beard.  The vast majority of the professional businessmen are clean-shaven.  For example, take notice of CEO’s, politicians, those on the Supreme Court, school teachers and principals, nice fast food restaurants, grocery stores, amusement parks, the armed forces and even the faces of various Presidents of the United States that are clean shaven.  Those in a position of representation of someone or some business will usually be clean shaven.  Those who work in sales are usually clean shaven because they know it helps to produce the right image of cleanliness, honesty, openness, and integrity.  While all clean shaven men are not paragons of righteousness, should not the Christian man be just as concerned with cleanliness, looking honest, and presenting a positive witness and image in the eyes of others.” Pg. 45-46

So, in one chapter he decries following the fashions of the world’s leaders, and in the next chapter demands that we assimilate and comply with their rules and trends in order that we can be accepted and trusted by them.  Curious indeed!

There are so many flawed principles in the above quote that I don’t know where to start.  Gore’s whole premise in the previous quote is becoming increasingly untrue.  Every time you go to town you are going to see numerous men with some form of facial hair.  Many of them are neatly groomed and in no way reflect a dishonest and unsavory individual.  I will deal with this idea more at a later point in the book.

I will deal with point 6-12 in blog A Response to Facial Hair: A Christian Perspective by Chancy Gore Part 4 (Chapter 2b)

---

[1] http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/66319605701