Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
That's not unity. That's uniformity.
|
Agreed, and it's unreasonable uniformity. Maybe something similar in scope would be making all Pentecostal women wear the same hairdo. Except it's still worse, since removing facial hair every day requires some physical alteration.
I'm still shocked that anyone still holds the stance that facial hair on men is wrong. I really thought that idea was fading away. But then, colored shirts, too...
I do strongly object to the imposition of any sweeping church rule regarding male facial hair, and I mildly object to it being a stipulation for church membership. Conversely, I also object to removing the right of pastors to make somewhat arbitrary rules of conduct and appearance for the local congregation based on their personal preferences, as annoying as some of those rules might be.
What I find truly repugnant is the implication that men who follow an extra-biblical rule are in any way superior Christians to those who do not, and the implication or outright statement that facial hair on men is a sin with zero biblical support behind it. As for the latter, I can forgive some issues a bit, because I realize they surround scripture that can be interpreted one way or another, and even badly. I don't
like it when scriptures are interpreted inaccurately (in my view), but I can
forgive it if it's obvious the motive is trying one's best to follow scripture. However, when it's apparent that a person is completely outside of the Word, and using their influence to push their own personal likes and dislikes, it becomes far less forgivable.
The Apostles showed the hearts of compassionate leaders when they said in
Acts 15:28,
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" They didn't want to burden the saints with anything more than was
necessary for them to live victoriously. Conversely, some ministers take the opposite tact, and it serves to shout their attitude to the world. They seem to take joy in weighing people down with extraneous rules and testing their commitment and consecration--which they were never called by God to do. The church leadership was never put in place by God to burden the saints. Paul said in
II Corinthians 12:19,
"Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ:but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying."
This scripture reminds me of a parenting principle our pastor has repeated through the years. He has always said parents shouldn't punish children for embarrassing them, or out of anger, and that parents should make sure all discipline is truly for the child's benefit--not the parents' benefit. That guiding principle is a fantastic one for parenting, because if you apply it diligently, you will carefully discipline your child[ren] in a way that's meant to build their character and benefit them as a person. In the same way, Paul shares a guiding principle for leaders:
"...we do all things...for your edifying." A godly church leader centers his service around building up and equipping the saints; a self-serving leader imposes arbitrary rules to please himself.
Again, motive matters here. If a pastor weighs an issue, searches scripture, prays, and comes to the conclusion that ______ is bad for his congregation and then shares it with them from that POV and with that attitude, that is forgivable even if he's off base. Motive and attitude matters. But the flippant attitude of "I don't like it, so you shouldn't do it" with no compassion felt for the saints who may feel burdened by an extraneous demand isn't as easy to pardon.
Linear Mode
