Forward
“The
Bible deals primarily with principles (such as describing worldliness as “the
lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life”) and generally
leaves the application to the teaching ministry in each generation. We are given the Holy Spirit and godly
leadership to guide us through the maze of social ills and ethical challenges
of this twilight age. We are sometimes
required to make moral judgments on matters our forefathers never confronted” Pg.
5
While the Bible does deal with principles, God also
communicates with razor sharp (pun intended) specificity in essential
matters. All one has to do to see the
specificity of God is to do a cursory reading of the tabernacle plan and the prescription
for priestly service; God knows how to get his point across.
“The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride
of life,” when taken in isolation, can be used by anyone to apply to anything
that they do not like. Many fringe
Apostolics have used these similar type arguments to preach against deodorant,
women shaving their legs, hair spray, neckties, suits and a myriad of other
things that our brethren (Ensey and Gore) would say is crossing the
line. We must be careful in our use of
“blank check” type passages to prove our points. Certainly our brethren would agree that a
verse of this nature would have its limitations.
I agree that the Holy Spirit, as well as godly leadership,
should be consulted in these matters.
However, when we reach the place, as we have, in the Apostolic movement
that those who allow facial hair are rejected for not giving godly leadership then we have misunderstood the Holy
Spirit, and have abused our authority as ministers of the gospel. I could cite two very specific examples;
however, I will just refer in general to the frequency with which we
disfellowship the brother who tolerates facial hair.
Elder Ensey states above: “We are sometimes required to make moral judgments on matters our
forefathers never confronted.” We
certainly do have to make judgment calls on contemporary issues; however to
refer to those decision, specifically in the context of facial hair, as “moral
judgments” is to dramatically over emphasize the importance of this issue. It is this kind of rhetoric that has led to
this issue being canonized. What I would
call a “moral judgment” concerning a contemporary issue that must be made is to
cast off the racism-based hatred that still opposes interracial marriage[1] in the majority of
conservative Apostolic churches. We
should be free to make a moral judgment in this matter.
“In
Peter’s Pentecostal message, he implored his hearers to “save [themselves] from
this untoward (unseemly, improper, unruly) generation” (Acts 2:40). Paul admonishes the Corinthians to separate
themselves from ungodly influences, practices, and customs (II Corinthians
6:14-17) because “the fashion of this world…passeth away, and the lust thereof:
but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 Corinthian 7:31; 1 John
2:17). It might be that a justifiable
application of these principles would preclude the wearing of facial hair in
contemporary American culture, especially as a fashion statement political
expression, or as a symbol of masculine pride.” Pg. 5-6
Save yourself from this untoward generation. Which part should we save ourselves
from? Is something sinful just because a
particular worldly generation does
it? No, all generations wear clothing.
What determines whether or not a particular activity by a generation is
untoward is scripture. There is nothing
that is untoward, unseemly, improper or unruly about facial hair alone. What is ungodly about the practice or custom
of facial hair? It cannot be deemed
ungodly since all admit that men of God in the Bible had facial hair.
To perfectly illustrate my point that facial hair in
contemporary American culture (circa 1960 to present) is not untoward,
unseemly, improper or unruly I offer two examples: The Jews and the Amish. For the duration of the opposition to facial
hair by Apostolics these two demographics of people have continued to wear
facial hair without bearing any of the antigovernment, sexual revolution or
negative societal stigmas. It was more
than facial hair that was stigmatic: it was facial hair together with long hair,
a style of dress, pot smoking, hippie vernacular and sexual promiscuity. You could tell by the dress and lifestyle of
both the Amish and the Jew that they were not included in the ideology and lifestyle
of the hippie movement.
Using “the fashion of this world passeth away” in 1
Corinthians 7:31 to refer to the worldly fashion of facial hair or anything
other fashion statement (shoes, clothes, ect…) is to abuse the context of this
passage. The fashion of this world that
passeth away has apocalyptic implications: firstly to the change in the order
of things that occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem and ultimately in the second
coming and resurrection (II Peter 3:10-13).
The ESV says it better: “the present form of this world” (I Corinthians
7:31).
“It might be that a
justifiable application of these principles would preclude the wearing of
facial hair in contemporary American culture…” Should we not have more than “it might be” before we begin to separate
fellowship, impugn a brother and divide the body of Christ.
“We
all know that there is no scripture specifically denouncing an unshaven face,
but neither is there any decrying the practice of smoking tobacco or taking
drugs. Broad principles have to be
conscientiously applied. It is wise to listen
carefully to godly, watchful pastors who are aware of practices or customs
which might damage our testimony or identify of with worldly elements of our
generation.” Pg. 6
How can one not see the fundamental difference between
facial hair and the other issues mentioned?
It is not that the Bible just does not denounce an unshaven face, it
condones unshaven faces. How many verses
of scripture do we have to cite to demonstrate that holy men of God had facial
hair? That is the distinction that was
obviously overlooked. There could be no
verse that denounces facial hair when it is obvious that God approved.
“This
timely work done by L.C. Gore is commendable.
His research is exhaustive and his presentation of facts is fair. It will be of great assistance in approaching
this matter with better understanding and insight.” Pg. 6
The research is far from exhaustive, and the presentation of
facts is far from fair. The research is
limited and the facts have been carefully trimmed and groomed to adorn the
author’s prima facie. It certainly has been of great assistance in
giving me better understanding and insight; I am more convinced than ever there
is no valid reason for the prohibition of facial hair.
[1] Interracial marriage among
humans is impossibility. There is only
one race, the human race. If you accept
the Genesis account of man’s origins then you must accept that all mankind
share in common Adam and Eve as ancestral parents; therefore, we are all one
race.
No comments:
Post a Comment