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 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