Holiness churches are concerned with preserving the God-given distinction between men and women, and rightly so. That’s why many holiness churches teach that women should wear skirts/dresses and grow their hair long while men should wear pants and cut their hair short. It is ironic, then, that a number of holiness churches do not allow their male members to grow facial hair or view it as unfavorable when facial hair is the only natural, publically visible, God-given distinction between the sexes. While men can grow their hair long and women can cut their hair short, and while men can dress effeminate and women can dress masculine, only men can grow facial hair. Raymond Crownover noted this inconsistency in his response to a paper presented at the first Urshan Graduate School of Theology symposium in May 2002, writing:
If differences in length of hair is vital in celebrating gender differences, and thus glorifying God, would not differences in facial hair also be a celebration of gender, perhaps even more so than length of hair? If the issue is glorifying God by demonstrating gender differences, how can the same church teach that a woman should not cut her hair and that a man should shave his beard or moustache?
While I would not want to argue that a man must have facial hair, surely there are better arguments for such a view than for the view that men must not have facial hair. After all, facial hair is part of God’s creative design. And since facial hair is unique to the male gender, it seems obvious that God provided facial hair as a distinguishing feature of the male gender. How can we maintain the principle of gender distinction while at the same time requiring men to remove the only natural, publically visible distinction between the genders? One could argue that a man who shaves his face is deliberately attempting to confuse the sexes, just as much as one who wears women’s apparel or grows his hair long. In fact, one can find such arguments being made by the ancients. Epictetus, a first century A.D. Stoic philosopher wrote:
Has not nature used even [the hairs on a chin] in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and female? … Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion.” – Dissertations, 1.16.9-14
And again:
Woman is born smooth and dainty by nature, and if she is very hairy she is a prodigy, and is exhibited in Rome. … But for a man not to be hairy is the same thing, and if by nature he has no hair he is a prodigy, but if he…plucks it out of himself, what shall we make of him? … “I will show you,” we say to the audience, “a man who wishes to be a woman rather than a man.” What a dreadful spectacle! … Man, what reason have you to complain against your nature? Because it brought you into the world as a man? … Make a clean sweep of the whole matter; eradicate…the cause of your hairiness; make yourself a woman all over, so as not to deceive us, not half-man and half-woman. Whom do you wish to please? Frail womankind? Please them as a man. “Yes, but they like smooth men.” Oh, go hang! And if they like sexual perverts, would you have become such a pervert? … Leave the man a man. … How treat your paltry body, then? As its nature is. … What then? Does the body have to be left unclean? God forbid! But the man to be clean as a man, a woman as a woman. … No, but let’s pluck out also the lion’s mane…and the cock’s comb, for he too ought to be “cleaned up”! Clean? Yes, but clean as a cock, and the other clean as a lion…! – Dissertations, 3.1.27-45
If we are to have any standard at all regarding facial hair, a standard that would require men to have facial hair makes more sense than one that prohibits it. Personally, however, I would argue that no standard regarding facial hair ought to be made, not even one that requires facial hair. While it is natural for a man to grow facial hair, that no more requires him to do so than the fact that women naturally grow hair on their legs requires them to have hairy legs. Aesthetic and cultural preferences should always be considered.
How we got here
The most recent tradition of forbidding facial hair on men started in the late 1960s when the hippies grew facial hair as a sign of their social rebellion. We did not want our Christian men to be associated with this social rebellion, so we required them to be clean shaven. Two things should be noted, however. First, the hippies did not merely grow facial hair, but typically unkept facial hair. A man with a well-groomed beard or mustache would not necessarily have been identified with the hippie community. Secondly, nearly 50 years have passed since then and our culture has changed dramatically. The hippies have passed from the scene, and there is no longer an association between facial hair and social rebellion today (even among those in our culture who do not like facial hair, its association with social rebellion is not at the root of their opinion). Even if one conceded that the prohibition against facial hair was justified in the 1960s given the cultural milieu, now that the cultural milieu has changed, so ought our stance on facial hair.
Was our reaction appropriate?
I think we have good reason to question the legitimacy of our movement’s response to the hippies, even given the cultural milieu of the 1960s. While we should try our best to avoid that which is associated with evil, I’m not convinced that the sweeping prohibition was justified given the relatively small number of hippies. It seems to have been an overreaction, particularly given the fact that only certain styles of facial hair were typical of the hippie movement.
Would the church react similarly if homosexual men began to make their sexuality known by universally rejecting facial hair as a symbol of their rejection of the traditional male role and natural male image? Would we start requiring Christian men to sport facial hair to avoid the appearance of being homosexual, or of supporting homosex? No, not unless all non-homosexual men grew facial hair and culture-at-large viewed all clean-shaven men as homosexual (similar to the way in which only gay men wore an earring in their right ear in the 1980s). And would these no-facial-hair preachers reverse their position and mandate that all Christian men must grow facial hair?
Where do we go from here?
We have an obligation to teach what Scripture teaches; no more and no less. To demand anything more is neither our right, nor our responsibility. When reason supports the wearing of facial hair, and godly men in Scripture wore facial hair, we can hardly forbid it. I implore holiness churches to stop forbidding facial hair, and stop looking suspiciously at those with facial hair (unless it’s a woman, of course!). While the times may change, the male nature remains the same.
Why do I have facial hair? Because that’s the way God made my face. In fact, all men have facial hair. The only question is whether or not they will (or be allowed to) let it break the surface of their skin. Express your manhood! Beard it up! There’s no reason to fear the beard.
January 6, 2015 at 9:21 am
Many Native Americans (males) do not have facial hair. Did God mess up? 🙂 It’s not accurate to say it is a gender difference empirically. This was a fun read. BTW, I’m from a Holiness Church, Wesleyan, and this legalism is long gone – thank God.
LikeLike
January 6, 2015 at 10:07 am
There are always some exceptions, but I wouldn’t consider that to invalidate the general observation anymore than the existence of hermaphrodites invalidates the notion that God created two genders.
LikeLike
January 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm
But one is a malformation, and the other (the genes=no facial hair) are those that God actually wrote the code for.
LikeLike
January 6, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Did God write the code for Native American men not to grow much facial hair, or is that the result of a genetic mutation that has crept into their bloodline? I don’t know, but I’m suggesting that both could be malformations.
Jason
LikeLike
January 6, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Hardy is less appearing facial hair a malformation. Everyone has body hair and or facial hair. It is to what extent? Some are dark and thick; others light and fine (Native Americans). It is hardly a malformation if someone has light and fine facial hair that rarely grows. The code that is written, the DNA, is an issue of order and what code resides in what gene pool. A mutation is a leap in logic that leads to racial (people group) discrimination that the South used against the African American, that they were a malformation – not what God designed. The assumption could be made from the other direction. That beards are the malformation and a mutation predominantly found in males – as a result from the fall, and the Native Americans have maintained the purest of the DNA. The point is – it is an argument that has a false premise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 9, 2015 at 8:11 am
“I implore holiness churches to stop forbidding facial hair, and stop looking suspiciously at those with facial hair (unless it’s a woman, of course!)”
Jason, good for you, I’m glad somebody has taken a stand against this silly notion. This is what happens when you take your focus off of Jesus Christ and on yourself. We need more Jesus-churches not holiness churches.
I would go one step further and even let the bearded lady in !
🙂
Naz
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Naz – All good points of agreement. I cringe though, as a Wesleyan, when I hear the “holiness” name and understanding being involved in this discussion. “Holiness Denominations” are in fact a doctrinal affiliation, such as Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist, Evangelical Church of North America, and Church of God (Anderson IN) Salvation Army, and CMA Christian Missionary Alliance, all stand for God’s love being lived out in a holy life. Holiness Churches do not preach or teach this legalism of no beards. I know some legalistic churches who preach that if you do not wear a beard you are effeminate and sinful. Both are wrong. It’s all a personal preference. Personally, I do not want facial stringy pit hair on my face 🙂 and my wife does not want to kiss it :O Give me 5 blade Gillette any day.
A funny story in College: We had one guy in our theology class that his church taught that a tie was “worldly”, and another ultra conservative guy who believed that you had to wear a tie or you were not bringing your best to God. If God cared this much about some dress code, it would have been in the BOOK. He didn’t. Beard or tie, long or short hair – God could care less.
Just a little education 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holiness_denominations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm
Best part of a beard is playing with your mustache. I’m Canadian, so I’ll have to research why President Lincoln didn’t have one.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 11:47 am
dgjesdal,
All biology has genetic roots, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it’s a matter of genetics. The value judgment is whether or not their relatively hairless nature is the “original” and hairiness is the result of a genetic mutation, or whether hairiness is the “original” and hairlessness is a result of genetic mutation. Given the small number of human males that cannot grow facial hair, I would tend to think it’s the latter. Of course, one could argue that the mutation, whichever way it goes, is not a matter of concern to God. Could be, but I wouldn’t bet on that.
As for the idea that if we say it’s a genetic defect, that will result in discrimination, I don’t necessarily buy that. Clearly albinoism and red hair are genetic defects, but we need not think they are somehow inferior humans for it.
Another thought on the idea of whether God messed up, as noted above, there are other genetic defects in the human race. Some are innocuous like the color of one’s hair or skin (albinos), while some are deadly. But nobody would say to such a comment, “Are you saying God messed up.” God is not the immediate cause of such things. The same could be true of hairless male faces. And just because some men cannot grow (much) facial hair would not invalidate the argument anymore than the fact that some women cannot grow their hair to a length that appears long would invalidate Paul’s argument that women should have/wear long hair. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule.
Jason
LikeLike
January 12, 2015 at 6:54 am
dgjesdal, thanks for the education…..
I sort of still have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear the word “holiness”. It actually makes me cringe a little when I think of the legalism I was once a part of.
I did not mean any disrespect to those actually trying to live a holy life in the the true sense of the word.
Regarding holiness, even when we fail, Christ has already made us holy and blameless. While we are called to put on holy behavior in our daily living. that has nothing to do with the fact that we have already been made holy and perfect by the blood of Jesus. We cannot get any more holy than we already are regardless of what we do.
Thank God !
Naz
LikeLike
February 13, 2015 at 10:49 am
I and a brother at my local church participated in No-Shave November. Then I shaved my beard. How can we call something intrinsically wrong if it was practiced by Christ, the apostles, and the vast majority (or entirety) of the Biblical world? One reason I did so was because I thought perhaps it might stimulate some thought on the subject. We had several people coming into the our church at the time with facial hair, and I felt a need to show that facial hair is not something for a man to be ashamed of.
Drinking wine with one’s meal falls into this category as well. There was no stigma attached until a certain point in time. In the early Church, there was no stigma against consuming alcohol but against drunkenness. Moderation was the idea.
For people who claim to believe only the teachings of the apostles, Oneness Pentecostals have a habit of believing things that only came about later.
LikeLike
January 2, 2016 at 7:46 am
There are some things to think about. If Jesus sat in the flesh among us today, would he humble himself and shave like the elders of the church? Beards today are not simply the exercise of manliness or tradition, but they are conforming to the present, transient fashion of the world (1 Corinthians 7:31). Beards are promoted by Hollywood, and the “jet set” of this world. Using the logic of following the dress fashion of Jesus’ day would also mean that men wearing robes is fine and other things like that.
LikeLike
January 3, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Gaul1748, why would the elders be shaven? The elders of Pentecost in years gone by weren’t. And why think this is a matter of conforming to the world anymore than parting your hair on the side is conforming to the world? Was Jesus conforming to the world since all men in his day wore beards?
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2019 at 12:27 pm
Jason writes:
It would have been better if you had simply stated that it is your God-given right to have facial hair since there is no explicit biblical prohibition for the same. God made your hair to grow long too, but He commands you to cut it in contradistinction to women’s hair. So, the fact that God “made” it does not imply that we should leave it like it is.
Now, you acknowledge that we should try our best to avoid associating ourselves with evil, but that includes abstaining from legitimate activities which can hinder our witness because of their perceived evil in the eyes of society.
First, it’s not good to do anything that would cause a brother to stumble or to make him weak (Ro. 14:21). Second, it isn’t good to do some lawful acts if they somehow control us in a negative way (1 Co. 6:12). Third, it is necessary to DO things that are technically unnecessary in order to further the gospel (Acts 16:3).
The last example merits more scrutiny. Recall what Paul taught with respect to circumcision:
Galatians 5
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
So, why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? We can all acknowledge that getting a shave is far preferable to circumcision, but Paul deemed it necessary to further the gospel or to at least keep Timothy’s uncircumcision from being a hindrance. Indeed, this is in accord with what Christ taught:
Mark 8
5 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.
There are things we do for Christ’s sake, and there are things we do for sake of the gospel. As Paul stated:
1 Corinthians 9
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
Given that we should avoid things that can hinder the gospel, even those things permissible in God’s sight, appeals to the way God made your face do not apply. The proper argument is whether growing facial hair can hinder the gospel in any way.
Even though you acknowledge the necessity of our avoiding associating ourselves with evil, you consider our reaction to the hippy movement to be excessive and unnecessary. If so, then why, to this day, do very few male politicians grow facial hair? As Christopher Oldstone-Moore, a history professor at Wright State University who has been called the world’s foremost beard expert, stated:
Also…
And we also find this:
Politicians are quite sensitive to public perception. I recall a gubernatorial race involving a bearded congressman. Prior to his running, he shaved his beard. When asked by reporters about it, he stated that his numbers show that a significant percentage of people still have a problem with beards, and he didn’t want that to be a hindrance to their voting for him—and this was in a liberal state (Washington).
According to The Science of Facial Hair, significant (not the majority) percentages of people associate facial hair with aggression, dominance, intimidation, less generosity, less caring and less cheerful attitudes. There are also significant percentages who view facial hair positively, but the question is why would a Christian man want to do anything that a sizable portion of society, to this day, perceives negatively? There are very few, if any, real negatives with going clean-shaven. If politicians, for the most part, will go clean-shaven to maximize their appeal, why wouldn’t the church? We at least have far better reasons for doing so. They want to get votes, we want to win them to Christ.
Consequently, I don’t consider it excessive to have a clean-shaven standard. Since facial hair isn’t mandated by the Scriptures, it is more of a personal or cultural preference. In our society, a significant percentage of Americans have negative feelings about facial hair. There is nothing “legalistic” about avoiding that negativity for sake of the gospel.
LikeLike
October 1, 2019 at 9:37 pm
Scalia, my “God made me that way” argument is not because it’s natural it is good, but that there must be a reason God made men, and only men, with facial hair. It doesn’t make any sense for God to design us with hair growing on our face, but then to think that we must not let it be seen in order to please God. I think God wanted us to have facial hair, and He wanted us to have it as part of the distinction of the sexes. That’s not to say that we have a moral mandate to have a beard. But surely there can be no human mandate against it. And that’s where some of the holiness churches have erred.
As for making people stumble, who stumbles at a beard? Who in our culture won’t listen to the gospel because it is being preached by a person with facial hair? While there are certainly people in our culture who do not prefer facial hair, it is not a hindrance to the gospel. The only people that it is a hindrance for are existing Christians who are in churches that teach it is in ungodly.
As for why politicians and business people typically don’t have facial hair, that’s a cultural thing. And that’s changing too. But it doesn’t make one iota of a difference to the argument. God gave men facial hair for a reason, and facial hair is not an obstacle to hearing the gospel, so I see no reason to forbid men from wearing facial hair, and good reasons for encouraging it.
LikeLike
October 1, 2019 at 11:04 pm
Jason writes:
Since I didn’t deny any of that, and since its denial isn’t part of my argument, what additional point are you trying to make?
There’s a reason that God made men’s sex organs with foreskins too. It is perfectly natural for a man to have his foreskin, but God commanded Israelite men to cut theirs off. The fact that it is distinctive of men does not mean that it should not be covered or cut off. The Bible doesn’t present the argument you offer. That’s why I said that it would have been better for you to simply state that it’s your Christian liberty to grow a beard. Male distinction is in clothing, behavior and hair (Dt. 22:5, 1 Co. 11:14-15).
I’ve already provided evidence that a substantial percentage of the population does not merely prefer a clean-shaven face; they associate unchristian attitudes and characteristics with facial hair. That’s a fact you do not address. If they’re suspicious of you, why would they listen to you?<As for why politicians and business people typically don’t have facial hair, that’s a cultural thing. And that’s changing too. But it doesn’t make one iota of a difference to the argument.Actually, it makes all the difference in the world. Since you at least acknowledge it to be “a cultural thing,” how did it become part of the culture? Why is having facial hair, “the kiss of death” for a politician? I’ve already answered that question: people are suspicious of facial hair. As a Christian, you’re obligated to be aware of things like that and to subordinate your personal desires or being technically right for the greater purpose of the gospel. If they won’t listen to a politician, they won’t listen to you either. That’s the point.
Again, once Christ fulfilled the types of the Law, reversion to circumcision was tantamount to a denial of Christ. Nobody seeking circumcision to draw closer to God would attain that goal. Nonetheless, Paul had Timothy circumcised to at least avoid being an obstacle to the gospel. That’s the argument I’m making. The fact that it is natural, permissible or legal does not imply that we should do it.
I have provided clear scriptural justification for that stance and have also provided evidence from numerous studies (my samples are merely representative of the body of evidence) verifying the negative connotations of facial hair in many Americans’ minds. Your sole argument is male distinction. As stated, the biblical male distinctions (with respect to visible features) are hair, clothing and behavior. We are under a biblical mandate to curb our desires for sake of the brotherhood and for sake of the lost. So appeals to how God made us are entirely irrelevant to the question.
You assert that the “culture” is changing, but we’re not nearly there yet (just where “there” is makes me nervous). Since we’re not there yet, it’s an issue we must prayerfully approach. Besides, our culture is getting worse, not better. America isn’t getting more spiritual; it’s collapsing into Sodom, and so-called holiness churches are falling all over themselves to look, dress, talk and act like the world. We’ve got churches with bed-head, tattooed, scruffy-bearded, t-shirt sporting and flip-flop wearing song leaders and preachers. Did that come out of a prayer meeting? Did our young people get that kind of vision after a season of prayer and fasting? Nope. They’re looking like that because that’s what the young people of the world are looking like. Skirts are getting shorter, slits are clear from Burbank to Honolulu, necklines are plunging, and styles are dictated by Hollywood. That’s not the kind of culture God wants us to be a part of or associate with, except in evangelism.
That said, if we were evangelizing in a Muslim country, having a beard might be a requirement. Since the Bible neither mandates nor prohibits them, it’s up to us to decide the kind of approach that best fits the gospel. In our society, a clean-shaven face in no measure incurs the negative reactions that facial hair does, and we’re not talking about 2-3 percentage points either. When we have negative numbers in the 30-50 percentile, we’d best be prepared to make adjustments for their sake, not ours.
LikeLike
October 1, 2019 at 11:09 pm
My fifth paragraph doesn’t properly offset Jason’s remarks, so here it is again:
I’ve already provided evidence that a substantial percentage of the population does not merely prefer a clean-shaven face; they associate unchristian attitudes and characteristics with facial hair. That’s a fact you do not address. If they’re suspicious of you, why would they listen to you?
Actually, it makes all the difference in the world. Since you at least acknowledge it to be “a cultural thing,” how did it become part of the culture? Why is having facial hair, “the kiss of death” for a politician? I’ve already answered that question: people are suspicious of facial hair. As a Christian, you’re obligated to be aware of things like that and to subordinate your personal desires or being technically right for the greater purpose of the gospel. If they won’t listen to a politician, they won’t listen to you either. That’s the point.
LikeLike
November 8, 2019 at 11:54 am
I’ve seen other surveys that show people prefer facial hair, so I’m not sure surveys will resolve the issue. One thing we need to recognize is that not all facial hair is the same. Attitudes will be different toward different styles of facial hair. For example, how people feel about a stubble beard vs. a ZZ top beard can be very different. Personally, I don’t like big bushy beards. I don’t question the moral character of those who have them, but I don’t think they are attractive. Same with mustaches. Attitudes are likely to change depending on the type of facial hair in view, and even those attitudes can change over time.
We should also consider regional differences. I live in California. Out here, even businessmen have facial hair. My pastor, who pastors a church of 5,000 people, has a beard. It’s not a big deal. If I had good reason to believe that people would ignore the gospel message from me due to my stubble beard, I would shave it. But I don’t. The only people I hear making a big deal out of facial hair are some OPs, and I don’t find their reasons to be persuasive.
LikeLike
November 10, 2019 at 1:14 am
Jason writes:
You didn’t have to look at “other surveys” because the ones I cited say essentially the same thing. If 25-50% of the populace is suspicious of people with facial to one degree or another, it follows that an equal or greater percentage have no problem with it whatsoever. That’s not disputed so why are you bringing that up?
Moreover, are you arguing that every survey, study and book written on the topic overstates the evidence that a sizeable percentage of the population objects to facial hair? Without offering facts to show that the numbers are exaggerated, your counter appears to reduce to a hand-waiving dismissal. That’s not persuasive at all.
And all of that is irrelevant to my argument. What you and I personally like has nothing to do with the fact that there are a lot of people who ascribe what we would call unchristian characteristics to people with facial hair, regardless the style.
All of this is addressed in my citations and links. So I am again puzzled why we’re still on this merry-go-round.
And how many of your congressmen/national male leaders have facial hair? It’s no big deal to the people for whom it’s no big deal. I dispute none of that, Jason. The point is there are a lot of people who DO have an issue with it, and politicians know this due to what their PR people tell them. Even though most people may not have a problem with their goatee or Lincoln beard, a good chunk of their constituents do, so they’re willing to go clean-shaven to avoid offense. I already told you about a liberal politician from a liberal state (Washington) who shaved his beard when he ran for governor. Most people in Washington don’t have a problem with facial hair either, but he shaved anyway because his surveys showed a significant chunk of Washintonians don’t like facial hair.
That’s good to hear because that’s essentially what holiness preachers have taught for a long time.
Yes, you DO have a good reasons for doing so, and I’ve delineated them.
Do you really think that people are going walk up to you in a restaurant and say, “Your stubble beard makes me suspicious of you”? Really, Jason?? Of course not! Nonetheless, it’s the “kiss of death” for politicians because their unstated feelings translate into votes. They’ll tune you out without ever telling you. But they will tell pollsters what they think, and that’s where the data is coming from.
The only reason you hear OPs “making a big deal out of facial hair” is they refuse to adopt your way of thinking. They read the same surveys that politicians read and for purposes of the gospel they remain clean-shaven. Your OP isn’t an appeal to “regional differences.” You’re arguing that our stand against facial hair should be dumped because you don’t think people have a problem with it. Well, you’re wrong, and your appeal to “other surveys” makes it appear that you’re simply going to ignore anything you don’t want to believe. Note, I said “appear.” If you dispute the percentages or numbers, then please tell us why they’re mistaken. Or, if you don’t think that 25-50% of the population is significant enough to warrant getting a razor, then state why. Citing surveys which I do not dispute and appealing to personal observations do not refute the facts that I have presented.
Since you acknowledge that you too would shave if you felt it hindered the gospel, then you imply that you agree with the biblical argument I presented which elucidates the principles upon which actions like that are based. Your only argumentative counter, then, is your denial that anybody except OPs are concerned. And the basis for your denial?—your personal unscientific observations and the fact that nobody has harangued you over your appearance. Sorry, Jason, but that’s not a good argument.
LikeLike
November 15, 2019 at 1:38 pm
Scalia, what you have to prove to me is that the people who have negative associations with facial hair would actually reject the message of the gospel simply because it came from a mouth surrounded by hair. I have no reason to believe that’s the case, especially where I live. My concern isn’t whether they like facial hair, or even have negative associations with it. My concern would be whether they would refuse to listen to the gospel due to it. And I don’t see why their association of facial hair with aggression, dominance, intimidation, less generosity, less caring, or less cheerful attitudes would shut them off from hearing and obeying the gospel.
If we are so concerned about people rejecting the gospel because of their negative associations of behavior not required by the Bible, then holiness churches ought to drop standards such as no jewelry, women wearing dresses, no shorts on men, etc. These have major negative connotations with non-believers. It makes us look weird and cultish, and I know for a fact that many people have refused the message due to it. Instead, we want to focus on facial hair. How many people do you know (from data or anectodally) who have refused to become a Christian or refused to join a particular church due to the evangelist/pastor/parishioners having facial hair? How many people do you know who didn’t want to come to your church or become a Christian because of non-biblical standards?
If you want to avoid facial hair because you think it may hinder the gospel, I wouldn’t balk at such a motive. I just think think your’re trying to prevent something from happening that would never happen anyway. If you share the gospel with someone and they reject it, there are plenty of more weighty reasons for them rejecting it other than your facial hair.
LikeLike
November 15, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Let me add one more thought. Ask yourself, if you were not raised in a church/organization that taught against facial hair, would you even be debating this? It’s easy to come up with arguments to justify a practice in your community when you are part of that community. But ask yourself how you would respond if you were not part of that community. What if you were part of a community that wore beards (or for whom facial hair was not an issue)? Would this be an issue for you then? And if someone from a Oneness church confronted the alternative you with these arguments, do you think you would find them persuasive such that you would shave your facial hair or leave your community?
I don’t offer this as an argument against your position, but simply for perspective. One can have a rationale for the practices of their community, but that rationale is often less than persuasive for those who are not in that same community. I know you are offering a rationale for your position – and I would grant that it has some legitimacy – but most people who are not part of your community will not find it persuasive, myself included.
LikeLike
November 16, 2019 at 11:44 am
Jason, you write:
Jason, the arguments I’ve presented here are not designed to force you to do anything you don’t feel is in the best interest of the gospel. I am simply offering what I think are good reasons why holiness churches avoid facial hair on men. You claim that there aren’t good reasons to adopt that standard, and I disagree with that.
Your replies concede arguendo that a substantial number of people are suspicious of facial hair to one degree or another (since you offer no evidence to the contrary) in order to argue against the notion that said persons will refuse to hear the gospel on that basis. My counter has been to ask what is it about a person’s mindset that would demand that as a basis for change? Your argument at the very least shows that a politician is more sensitive to a person’s feelings than a Christian. The difference is even more stark when you consider that a politician’s motives are selfish whereas we’re supposed to be altruistic.
You’re arguing ad hominem. Conceding that holiness churches are inconsistent in the application of a principle neither refutes the principle nor a particular instance of its application.
I personally know people who will not attend a church that preaches against homosexuality. Increasingly, churches that preach against gay sex and transgenderism are seen as hate-filled on par with Nazis. You can’t point at their rejection of standards as the justification for abandoning standards. And I think that you would counter with the objection that our preaching against homosexuality is a biblical stand whereas the others are not.
Your argument that our stand against cosmetics and jewelry are unbiblical will find no agreement here. If they reject the gospel on the basis of holiness, then so be it. In principle you would agree. Your beef is with our application of holiness. But if a substantial number of them associate facial hair with what we all agree are unchristian attitudes, why would we do it simply because we can? I’ve NEVER met anybody who avoided a church because the men were clean-shaven.
Now, anecdotally, I’ve met and interacted with quite a few people in my life who avoided or wanted to avoid persons with beards. The persons I’m referring to weren’t Christians neither were they influenced by a holiness background. When forced due to circumstances to be in that environment due to a business transaction, they were uncomfortable the whole time. So what? My experiences will not move you nor anybody reading this to change their minds, so what’s the point of the question? You’ll say that’s not been your experience—impasse.
You have no basis for that conclusion other than your unscientific observations. If making somebody uncomfortable who associates what you do with unchristian characteristics doesn’t bother you, then keep on truckin’. It bothers us, so I think we’re on much firmer biblical ground.
LikeLike
November 16, 2019 at 12:16 pm
Jason asks:
More ad hominem fodder which is all the more irrational because you’re not going to get the answer that you expect.
I converted to Oneness Pentecostalism from the Baptists. My Baptist church did not teach against facial hair—or much of anything for that matter. I guess, maybe, if the organ player walked on the platform in a bikini they might have had a problem with it. My Apostolic pastor belonged to the UPC, but he did not preach against facial hair (for the same reasons, and others, that you offer). He did, however, require ministers (and ministers only, platform participants could have facial hair) to be clean-shaven to avoid offending the organization. So no, I am not defending a tradition I was either raised in or adopted due to conversion.
We had a very large church, but we wanted to reach more people. My pastor felt that the traditional Pentecostal “look” was outdated, unbiblical, and not in keeping with the Great Commission. We also fellowshipped the more liberal elements of Pentecost, so we didn’t feel that we were isolated. He eventually dropped his stand against cosmetics, jewelry, pants on women, etc. He also opened the door for trinitarian ministers and fellowship. That in turn, convinced them that one’s godhead views, Jesus’ name baptism, and speaking in tongues as the initial sign of Spirit baptism were all non-essential. Today, my home church is trinitarian. A smaller group broke off (I was not among them) to retain the oneness and new birth message.
That’s actually exactly what happened. Prior to our church becoming trinitarian, we went to district functions, and I of course interacted with friends in other churches who were increasingly concerned with the direction of our church. Our church constantly preached against Phariseeism so I was suspicious of any attempt to drive me into legalism. With respect to facial hair, they convinced me that Christian charity compelled me to avoid offense if possible, and I gladly embraced it.
I also had friends in “liberal” churches who had facial hair. One night, during fellowship, a dear friend started complaining as you do about “legalism” and the stand against beards when “Jesus had a beard!” I told him about hearing different perspectives and bounced them off of him for his opinion. He listened intently but didn’t say much. It didn’t make any difference to me whether he had facial hair, so you can imagine my shock the next time I saw him. He was clean-shaven! I could tell you story after story of similar events. Sorry, Jason, but you’re barking up the wrong tree with your questions.
Good, because if you were, that would be ad hominem.
LikeLike