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

A Response to Facial Hair: A Christian Perspective by L. Chancy Gore Part 1 (Forward)

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.