To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by derAlte

I have an African-American relative who made the mistake of wearing a red tracksuit while riding the bus from California to see us. No one would look at him or make eye contact because they thought he was a "Blood" gang member. It was a bad choice, but fortunately, no one shot him.

Out here on the range, where the deer and the antelope play, the red tracksuit didn't faze anybody. Because Black people are few on the ground around here, that made him more exotic than his clothes.

In California, I'd advise him to ditch the tracksuit for his own safety. In 50 years, when the few surviving gangbangers are residents of geriatric wards (if the Lord tarries), it would seem kind of silly to continue to advise against red tracksuits.

Seems the same reasoning would apply to beards.

How crazy of a world is it that a wrong choice of clothes might get you killed?

I heard of a man getting shot because he had a blue or a red bandana hanging partly out of his back pocket. He was from out of town and did not know that such things were used as a gang sign. But a rival gang driving by saw it and killed him over his handkerchief. Crazy!

If I lived there, I would not see anything preached against wearing such colors as being wrong since they do affect those in that church.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I'm glad you feel that way because I have a bad habit of going off on tangents and asking a thousand and one questions. Ha!

So in trying to keep this in line with the thread topic of beards, how should leadership go about undoing a standard that has been in place, but is now understood to be improper? For instance, if a pastor has preached against beards for two decades -- and the congregation has accepted this as necessary -- but the pastor then 'sees the light', how can that pastor undo this standard without eroding a foundation that has been built over the years? It seems as though it would be difficult to tell a congregation that what was 'wrong' for two decades is now suddenly okay without receiving quite a blowback.

A lot of churches revolve almost entirely around one man. Thus, when a preacher runs off with the treasury under one arm and the deacon's wife under the other, the whole church may fall apart to pieces. Or, when a popular preacher dies the church he pastored is "never quite the same" and dwindles away. Or, as in the example you are citing, if a pastor reverses some stand, manyget disgruntled, others get confused, some backslide, a split may occur, some may leave because they fear the newly charted course is headed for an iceberg down the line... And sometimes they are right.

I think a more biblical approach would be one where doctrine, faith, and practice arent being delivered in a top down fashion from a Moses-like pastoral figure, but where everyone - including any and all teachers - are understood to be getting everything from prayerful Bible study. Thus a correction isnt some guy chsnging his mind and dragging the church with him, but a more collective endeavor brought about by prayer, study, and discussion, as a Body.

If people's faith is based on book chapter verse thus saith the LORD, instead of "what pastor X believes", then course correction are expected and welcome IF done corporately with clear and decisive scriptural cases laid out.

Just jumping in a pulpit and announcing "Okay, something we believed for 20-40 years is no longer kosher" is a recipe for disaster.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

As both a preacher and a parent, I can appreciate your question about making rules.

In my study, I talked about how a standard against wearing local gang colors or gang clothing styles would protect the saints against misidentification or personal harm. Of course, that standard is not found in the Bible, but it is still valid since it is established for the specific purpose of the "spiritual well-being" of the saints.

In contrast, I know one pastor who loved playing the card game Rook. After a few years, he decided he enjoyed it too much. Instead of him stopping, he made his Rook problem into a church standard. He took that rule to the pulpit and preached that playing Rook was a sin. He asked all the saints to throw their games away so they would not be in rebellion. Years later this same pastor changed his mind and dropped that standard so the church (including him) could again play Rook. I never saw this "standard" serving the "spiritual well-being" of the saints. Instead, it was a personal conviction of that pastor, which he forced onto his congregation. So, because it was about him and not something related to God, I would say that rule was "invalid," so he was right to drop it.

With the above in mind, I think your question of "how much leeway" a minister has "when deciding" is better asked as "how much leeway" does a minister believe they have with God? What I mean is, since God calls ministers to act as servants and not masters, no rule should ever be made from a preacher's personal beliefs or selfish purposes. The first pastor's rule served the needs of his congregation. The second pastor's rule served him in his own struggle. I believe a minister should be able to tell those he serves a legitimate reason why a rule was being made and how it will benefit them. Any rule that sounds like a "do it because I said so" is probably coming from a preacher that doesn't see themselves as such a servant, which means their rule is probably not a "valid" one.

One of the best posts I've read on standards!

I agree with everything you said.

But I have a related question that maybe you can also help with.

Let's say a pastor sets a standard for a local congregation. Let's say their local town is full of deep country honkytonk bars, strip clubs, etc. The general spirit of this place is alcoholism, drugs, womanizing, fighting, shooting, etc., and the general style is facial hair, cowboy boots, cowboy hats, fringe, and big belt-buckles. This pastor begins to feel like when the saints wear these things, they look more like the rough and rowdy crowd than they do saints of God. This feeling grows and after much prayer it grows into what he believes to be a genuine conviction of the Holy Ghost. So, he approaches the pulpit and lovingly unfolds why he believes he has to draw the line against facial hair, cowboy hats, cowboy boots, fringe, and big belt-buckles. Maybe he even feels a deep conviction against the Confederate flag based on its local reputation for representing pro-Confederate, and even sometimes racist, attitude. Please understand, this is a hypothetical town where the "country" style of dress and Confederate flag motifs appears to be represented throughout the sinful local culture and venues. He has no personal beef with any of these things in and of themselves. But when saints dress the part and fly the Stars and Bars on their vehicles, they look like the violent, alcoholic, womanizing, racist, "country boys" that dominate the area. So, he sets standards that would not reflect the "sinful culture" of the locality. Instead, saints are to be clean shaven and essentially wear business dress and casual attire.

Now, based on what you wrote (which I agree with) another pastor in another town may not have any of the convictions this pastor in question has against country style. That's because it isn't associated so richly with a local culture of sin. Both pastors are within God's will because the local cultures must be considered.

Now, back to the pastor who drew a line with wearing cowboy hats, boots, belt-buckles, fringe, etc.... if you attend his church and choose to continue wearing your cowboy hat, boots, beard, and fly your Confederate flag... are you "in sin"? Maybe this style is normative to you, but you don't drink, womanize, or get rowdy. And let's say that you're not a racist, you just have a bit of Southern Pride regarding your heritage. Are you still in sin if you continue to dress country, wear a beard, and fly your Stars and Bars?

And if you are in "sin"... how serious is it?

Is it possible to not be "in sin" over the issue, but not be considered a member in good standing?

Could acknowledging the pastor's convictions, but choosing to maintain your country style cost you your soul???

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

One of the best posts I've read on standards!

I agree with everything you said.

But I have a related question that maybe you can also help with.

Let's say a pastor sets a standard for a local congregation. Let's say their local town is full of deep country honkytonk bars, strip clubs, etc. The general spirit of this place is alcoholism, drugs, womanizing, fighting, shooting, etc., and the general style is facial hair, cowboy boots, cowboy hats, fringe, and big belt-buckles. This pastor begins to feel like when the saints wear these things, they look more like the rough and rowdy crowd than they do saints of God. This feeling grows and after much prayer it grows into what he believes to be a genuine conviction of the Holy Ghost. So, he approaches the pulpit and lovingly unfolds why he believes he has to draw the line against facial hair, cowboy hats, cowboy boots, fringe, and big belt-buckles. Maybe he even feels a deep conviction against the Confederate flag based on its local reputation for representing pro-Confederate, and even sometimes racist, attitude. Please understand, this is a hypothetical town where the "country" style of dress and Confederate flag motifs appears to be represented throughout the sinful local culture and venues. He has no personal beef with any of these things in and of themselves. But when saints dress the part and fly the Stars and Bars on their vehicles, they look like the violent, alcoholic, womanizing, racist, "country boys" that dominate the area.

Now, based on what you wrote (which I agree with) another pastor in another town may not have any of the convictions this pastor in question has against country style. That's because it isn't associated so richly with a local culture of sin. Both pastors are within God's will because the local culture must be considered.

Now, back to the pastor who drew a line with wearing cowboy hats, boots, belt-buckles, fringe, etc.... if you attend his church and choose to continue wearing your cowboy hat, boots, beard, and fly your Confederate flag... are you "in sin"? Maybe this style is normative to you, but you don't drink, womanize, or get rowdy. And let's say that you're not a racist, you just have a bit of Southern Pride regarding your heritage. Are you still in sin if you continue to dress country, wear a beard, and fly your Stars and Bars?

And if you are in "sin"... how serious is it?

Is it possible to not be "in sin" over the issue, but not be considered a member in good standing?

Could acknowledging the pastor's convictions, but choosing to maintain your country style cost you your soul???

Yup, hide the cheerios.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A lot of churches revolve almost entirely around one man. Thus, when a preacher runs off with the treasury under one arm and the deacon's wife under the other, the whole church may fall apart to pieces. Or, when a popular preacher dies the church he pastored is "never quite the same" and dwindles away. Or, as in the example you are citing, if a pastor reverses some stand, manyget disgruntled, others get confused, some backslide, a split may occur, some may leave because they fear the newly charted course is headed for an iceberg down the line... And sometimes they are right.

...

This is *exactly* what I had in mind. Multiple churches in the area, sadly, have experienced what you have described. I love my pastor, but if he walked away this very minute, the gospel remains unchanged.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yup, hide the cheerios.

Eww_ww

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I'm glad you feel that way because I have a bad habit of going off on tangents and asking a thousand and one questions. Ha!

So in trying to keep this in line with the thread topic of beards, how should leadership go about undoing a standard that has been in place, but is now understood to be improper? For instance, if a pastor has preached against beards for two decades -- and the congregation has accepted this as necessary -- but the pastor then 'sees the light', how can that pastor undo this standard without eroding a foundation that has been built over the years? It seems as though it would be difficult to tell a congregation that what was 'wrong' for two decades is now suddenly okay without receiving quite a blowback.

Great question.

My wife went to JCM in the early 1980s. During one class, her teacher told the music students how to make changes to the music program of a church where they were recently hired as the music minister. He told them that changes must come, but they need to be made slowly.

Because of my ministry experiences, I've known pastors who wanted to change their teachings on eschatology. Some of those men asked my opinion on how to do that without hurting their congregation. I suggested they do the same thing they do every service--just teach what the Bible says. Using a pulpit to communicate biblical truth is a powerful thing. A saint knowing why they believe something is better than them just being told to believe it. Such education is the third part of the Great Commission, which says to "teach all things" (Matt 28:19).

And then there's the power of confession. I worked with a Nazarene preacher many years ago. During that time we had many talks about Bible doctrine. He eventually saw the truth of One God and Acts 2:38 salvation. He took that to his pulpit and confessed what he now knew to be the truth and how that made what he had before taught to be false. He then taught his congregation where these were in the Bible so they could also see these truths. He did lose some folks, but many of his congregation saw it, converted, and stayed.

I think the key is sincerity. If a congregation knows their church leaders have a real love for the things of God, I believe they are more apt to trust those leaders. After all, Paul did say to follow him as he follows Christ. Then, if those leaders do their jobs and teach the congregation, God and His word can then do the rest.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A lot of churches revolve almost entirely around one man. Thus, when a preacher runs off with the treasury under one arm and the deacon's wife under the other, the whole church may fall apart to pieces. Or, when a popular preacher dies the church he pastored is "never quite the same" and dwindles away. Or, as in the example you are citing, if a pastor reverses some stand, manyget disgruntled, others get confused, some backslide, a split may occur, some may leave because they fear the newly charted course is headed for an iceberg down the line... And sometimes they are right.

I think a more biblical approach would be one where doctrine, faith, and practice arent being delivered in a top down fashion from a Moses-like pastoral figure, but where everyone - including any and all teachers - are understood to be getting everything from prayerful Bible study. Thus a correction isnt some guy chsnging his mind and dragging the church with him, but a more collective endeavor brought about by prayer, study, and discussion, as a Body.

If people's faith is based on book chapter verse thus saith the LORD, instead of "what pastor X believes", then course correction are expected and welcome IF done corporately with clear and decisive scriptural cases laid out.

Just jumping in a pulpit and announcing "Okay, something we believed for 20-40 years is no longer kosher" is a recipe for disaster.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yup, hide the cheerios.

It’s him.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Eww_ww

Ewwwww-wwwwwwwwww