To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I've never seen a group so self-righteous about being biblically righteous in my entire life.

Isn't that the truth. Being Biblically accurate isn't a bad thing, but let's face it everyone who swing from the steeple, believes they are Biblically accurate. Hence we have full blown arguments on what is Biblical. Someone in a church where the leadership is flippin and trippin, move on.

I have posted before on my friend who has a church where you must have a beard, you must fast when the elders TELL YOU to fast. No internet, plus if you were baptized IN JESUS NAME without a beard, you need to be baptized again with facial hair (of some kind). But he will give you awesome arguments on why he is right. His people are totally cool with what is going on. But this isn't an anomaly, it is corn bread and butter beans religion. In our yearning to not be cult like, we end up being a wee bit self righteous. We are good and they are bad. While outside around us the ship is sinking all the way to the bottom.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

How so? Please enlighten me.

How can that be possible?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Can you give me a biblical standard that would fix the predicament given by Bro. Burk: clothing color associating a saint with a local gang? Or is that not a problem the church should be concerned with?

There is no gang in the USA or elsewhere, even MS-13, which is more dangerous to the church than the Romans and Jewish priesthood were to the first believers in Acts.

The Biblical standard therefore to solve the problems a church might be having in gangland is to pray without ceasing with fasting and intercession, coupled with evangelism and turn their communities upside down. Ever read what the Apostolics did in Ethiopia? Or what early Pentecostals endured and did in rural America way back when?

The solution has ever been the same.

If the standard isn't fixing a problem, then it shouldn't be instituted. On that we can agree completely.

I will do you one more. If the standard isn't in the Bible, it shouldn't be instituted, even if someone thinks it's going to solve a problem.

But we aren't in charge of each and every congregation across this globe, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks they know better than those involved in each congregation.

Why does everyone think they know better than the Apostles and Prophets, and Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone?

As Esaias made clear pages ago, the Bible is the final authority for all belief and practice. It is the governing document. While sincere brethren may disagree about how to interpret its contents, we must here admit, WE AREN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK at this point. To go outside of the pages of Holy Writ is to go outside of the revealed will and plan of Almighty God, to do, as Jediwill tried to show, your own thing. In parable, Jesus told of a man who entered into a wedding feast improperly attired and was cast into outer darkness with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

That parable is an attack on the Pharisees, those lovers of adding to the Word all kinds of man-made traditions and rules to govern the people.

I understand the hesitation, but the invalidity of one rule isn't evidence that another rule isn't appropriate.

All extra-Biblical mandates are inappropriate. Think carefully about what we are talking about, and what you are saying. You are arguing over whether it's appropriate to take the will and law of man and use it to govern the faith and actions of believers as it pertains to their faith. We aren't talking about using a crosswalk because of a local city ordinance. We are talking about creating rules and governing over what it means to be a believer acceptable to God and Church.

That would be for the elders of the local congregation to decide.

The elders don't get to decide to institute anything not found in the Book. Where do you see anywhere in all of the Bible where God ever gave the elders the right to add to or take away from His Word in order to create a standard for church practice?

I'm honestly not sure why you are trying to demand perfection from those instituting rules, though.

Because the rules that are being instituted aren't in the Bible and as such, those who have instituted them are going to have to explain to their Maker some day, face to face, why they put those rules into play without the express written command of the One who makes the rules.

Do we not tremble at God's Word, to add to or take away from It?

I think we have enough bible to say that fornication is wrong -- with the way things are going, perhaps someone will want to argue that -- but that doesn't stop young people from fooling around and being forced to deal with all of the fallout. What you are presenting as unintended consequences, I am viewing as people being people. They are trying their best, but make mistakes. Some of us are afflicted by that. Thankfully there are many amongst us -- especially on this forum -- who are not.

Of course, we all are but people, prone to mistakes. But that isn't an excuse. The one who is tempted through lust and fornicates is just as guilty as the one tempted through power to control. It's all the same, in the end.

(continued...)

[votivesoul]

(continued...)

Think about it clearly. Some men want to control what grows naturally from other men's faces. Facial hair is as natural and normal to men as desiring to get married and eat. If you would not forbid marriage or from eating, why in the world would you forbid a man from having facial hair, or severely curtail his ability to be a fully functioning priest in the Kingdom of God at the level of local church?

If a man wants to shave, that's his prerogative. Let him do as he pleases.

But if not, then let him do what he pleases.

Think of it this way:

Paul writes plainly that a husband doesn't have authority over his own body, nor the wife over hers, but each has authority over each other's, as it relates to the marriage bed. But when it comes to facial hair, another man has authority over another man's ANATOMY, regardless of the wife's disposition to facial hair, for example.

It is perverse. In the secular world, you can take or leave these standards at your leisure. Don't like them, don't sign up. But this isn't the secular world. This is the sacred church, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We've got it so backward.

Do you seriously view this example on the same plane as elders asking for clean shaven men in leadership?

This preacher's view caused men and women to surrender their God-given, God-ordained right to how they used their marriage bed and conceived children. His view, even unintentionally, interwove itself and intervened in the natural production of children.

To the degree that this occurred, it is vastly worse in scope, but in principle, it's the same thing. Go and see what being accused of being a busybody in other men's matters means.

My goodness, if we just had Bro. Benincasa's attitude and did it out of respect for our brethren, wouldn't all of these unintended consequences just melt away?

No.

If you simply can't do that, move on.

Did.

How can people bark about man-made standards to get on a man-made platform at a man-made church -- because WE are the REAL church -- with a straight face?

Those are only issues for churches which insist on having man-made platforms and man-made churches. I am not a member of such a man-made church, so I wouldn't know.

Simply move on down the road. Why fight and be contentious?

No one in my church contends over man-made standards, because we don't have any over which to contend. But this is a public forum where such views are welcome, to be shared, debated, rebuffed, and etc.

I don't go from assembly to assembly picking fights with people.

I see a lot of finger pointing at the stay-shaved folks, but the attitude of the beard folk leaves a lot to be desired. And are we seriously going to fault people for trying to be proactive? Your take seems to be it isn't a problem if it isn't a problem.

My take is, you are causing more problems by instituting man-made mandates. You can be proactive all you want, but if the Bible isn't enough, then not a single thing else will ever be sufficient for you.

Next time I'm cooking, I won't tell my daughter to stay away from the burner. I'll just keep some ointment on hand in case she burns herself.

That's pretty much what a man-made standard looks like in action. Instead of thorough teaching and instruction, just use some man-made salve to solve the problem after the fact. Hippies and weirdos started wearing beards to be counter-cultural, so let us all shave post fact to solve the problem of there being sinners in the world who want to cut across the grain of normal society.

After all, a potential problem isn't a real threat, only problem problems need attention, right?

What problems? Brother Burk gave a hypothetical scenario only. How about some actual problems churches have. List them off. And then show me how you have to go extra-Biblical to solve them.

Again, if you think the church you attend has leadership that is just north of cuckoo, MOVE ON. Don't sit around waiting for things to fester. Take a little responsibility and nip it in the bud. #barneyfife

This rhetoric is nice and all, but it doesn't accurately reflect the nature of the ground upon which I walk. I don't attend a church where I think the leadership is north of cuckoo, partly, or even mostly, because, we eschew man-made, extra-Biblical mandates and standards. Imagine, if a church did nothing else but at the very least not add to the Word of God or subtract from the Word of God, how wonderful that would be. If, for example, a doctor or physician, at the very least, first, did no harm, how much better off their patient would be, compared to the doctor or physician who meddles and goes outside the mandates of his profession in order to engage in quackery.

Yes, we have asked for men to stay out of the nursery because at any given time it is possible, though unlikely, that someone might be breastfeeding an infant. We hold this standard high and ask to be exalted for our observance of such.

Ah, you don't want someone to accidentally or intentionally uncover a woman's nakedness (Leviticus 18:7-16). How Biblical of you! Well done!

We also refuse to let a single individual teach in a Sunday school class. There are always at least two persons present for the safety of both the children and the teachers.

And? If we care to stay in the Holy Scriptures, we find that all of the above is unnecessary, because it's not within the limits of the Bible. The only people ever directed by God to teach children are the parents of the children (Deuteronomy 6:1-9 and Ephesians 6:1-4). Because you have an extra-Biblical ministry, you now have to draw up extra-Biblical rules to govern it.

Pages and pages of by-laws exist for this stuff. But no Bible.

Bow down to our extra-biblical-man-made rules and punch your ticket to heaven by having just a shred of decency and respect for those around you. This shave or no shave issue proves nothing other than people still have stinking rotten attitudes on both sides of the fight. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon either.

Listen. The matter is simple. Get rid of "extra-biblical-man-made rules". Then you never have to worry about bowing down to anything but Jesus Christ as Lord. And your ticket to heaven will stay nice and punched.

We have to quit assuming that every extra-biblical rule came with malicious intent.

Who cares about intent? Lots of good intentions everywhere. It doesn't matter. You go outside of God's Word, you've got nothing to hang onto but your own notions on how to get it done. Good luck with that.

The truth is, people are drawn away by their own lusts. These things take time. No one ever falls in a single moment. Look at the Greek text for "drawn away" in James 1:14. It means to lure away, as a fisherman or hunter lures away game. It's playing the long game. So, you come up with a man-made standard to solve a church problem. Most go along to get along, many even agree with it. Fine. Seems like a good thing at the time. AT THE TIME. But give it time, and the little calves grow up into GIGANTIC SACRED COWS that none dare slaughter without being accused of having "stinking attitudes".

I disagree with a mandate to be clean shaven. I believe it has been abused in some places, and anyone trying to put another in hell for not adhering to this rule should be ashamed of themselves. I am in no way trying to defend this particular rule.

So, what's the issue?

BUT, to fight against it by accusing them of being idolatrous whoremongers is only escalating the situation.

So is wishing that Judaizers who try to force Gentiles to be circumcized ought to castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12). In the grand scheme of things, it may seem that being able to shave or not at one's own discretion is one of the least of all issues. But it isn't. It is one of the most fundamental issues of all. Not the facial hair, or lack thereof. Who cares?

This is about Lordship. About headship. A line must be drawn somewhere. That line is the Holy Scriptures. If it isn't, then what is? The answer is obvious: the whims of man. That's Mystery Babylon defined. Consider Nimrod. His names means REBEL. You dare build up some religious institution all the way to heaven thinking you're doing God's work, guess what? God calls you "rebel". It doesn't work both ways. Why? Because such religious institutions are rightly called "Babel", which is to say "confusion". Who's in charge? Who gives the orders? Who has the final say? God, or someone else?

I don't see how such rhetoric is going to get a point across. To be honest, I feel the same way about abortion. To call pro-choice folks "baby killers" might be simply an accurate statement to the one presenting it, but all it does is turn off the target audience. So just keep it up. I've never seen a group so self-righteous about being biblically righteous in my entire life.

Why did the angel tell John Mystery Bablyon is called THE MOTHER OF ALL HARLOTS? Does that rhetoric not get the point across? Sometimes, too many times, people are in a terrible stupor of complicit, complacent, human-centered religion. Sometimes, a rhetorical device or flourish is all that will wake and shake someone up. There have been so many posts here at AFF that were full of rhetoric, that were at first hard to take, that pushed and challenged me. But I am better for them. My doctrinal understanding has been refined and helped immeasurably betimes because someone here made good use of, even explosive, in your face rhetoric.

Face to face, one on one, is different than a public forum for the expressing of ideas. Face to face, a different tack may and usually can be taken. But none of us is face to face, so far as I know. This is a completely different form of communication. Here, all we have are typed words, some emojis, and an occasional youtube video or gif. On a message board, if we don't employ the use of rhetoric, we're not going to get much across to anyone.

For everyone turned off, there are others who are turned on.

Bro. Hometown and Bro. Apostolic1ness have both stated they aren't putting bearded folks in hell. So if you want to discuss whether or not that is the "logical conclusion" of their stance, they would likely be willing to discuss the matter.

See n_david's posts in this thread.

But to anyone who would accuse them of turning the bride of Christ into their own personal whore, you are just as wrong as you think they are. I don't care if it was presented "with all the love of Jesus." To accuse brothers and sisters of such malicious things is only good for causing strife.

I did not accuse these two members of anything. I said, that if someone in the church is elevated to the level of an idol, so that his word is held in esteem over the Word of Christ, and the members of that church engage with him on that level, as an idol, that they, on the whole, are committing idolatry, which is spiritual whoredoms with what is supposed to be the Bride of the Anointed One.

Does that accusation hit the mark? I have no idea. But the witness it preaches is true all the same.

[votivesoul]

The pirke avot reads:

“Moses received the Torah from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.”

This is Rabbinical Judaism (Talmudic) 101. The third part is justified based off of Deuteronomy 22:8, regarding the law to build a fence on the roof of a house so that someone will not accidentally fall from your roof and die and you incur bloodguilt.

The purpose of this fence around the Torah, call khumra in Hebrew, is to protect people from breaking the various inspired laws/commands (mitzvot) of the Torah by adding to the Word additional guides and instructions.

This practice originated with the Pharisees, who predated Christ by over 150 years. The word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew word Perushim, meaning the "separated ones". These men believed that they needed to separate themselves from the norms and cultural customs of their day and live holy lives unto God.

It was a noble pursuit. But after several decades, the various guides and instructions, that is, fences, they built around the Torah became first, traditions, then integrated customs, to norms, to laws, to the extent that, for example, not only were you not supposed to work or do servile work on the Sabbath, you couldn't even carry something in your hand farther than a so-called "Sabbath's Day Journey, which was about 2,000 cubits, without grieving God and causing offense in the community. This is shown in John 9 when the formerly blind man carries his mat at the instruction of Jesus.

And even now, to this day, many religious Jews, devoted to their rabbis and to the Talmud, obey all sorts of strange customs that have no existence in the Holy Scriptures. I worked for years at a high-end resort that hosted a week-long getaway around Passover for a large group of affluent Jewish people.

The resort bent over backward to accommodate this group and their money. The members of the group claimed that because they were on religious holiday, they were prohibited from doing certain things, like turning their own lamps in their rooms on and off, filling and turning on their own cpap devices (I was tasked with that one), pushing their own buttons in an elevator, and if you can believe it, flushing their own toilets.

The hotel staff did all of this for them. We also changed out all the locks to manual locks, surrendered an entire kitchen to their rabbis so it could be made kosher, and etc. The list was endless.

All of these things are nowhere in the Torah, but are merely fences to "help" these folks not break the actual commandments contained within the Law.

Jesus hated this stuff with a passion, so much so, He railed that the Pharisees who practiced such fence building could not go where He was going. They thought He meant He was going to kill Himself, but Jesus meant Heaven. He didn't say they wouldn't go. He said they COULD NOT go, that they were going to die in their sins. Imagine that. The Savior of the World telling a group of people He was going to absolutely refuse to save them (See John 8:21-22).

Do you see how serious this is? This is eternal life and eternal death. Jesus refused to save people over adding fences (man-made, extra-Biblical standards) to the Word of God.

If you see nothing else, at least see this. If you were a Perusha and you prohibited the growth of facial hair on your fellow Jews in order to be in good standing with the synagogue, keeping men from standing up to read the Scriptures, from speaking or exhorting their fellow believers, to say, perhaps, not offend the Romans who shaved regularly as a cultural practice, what do you suppose Jesus would say to you about your fence?

And does asking you this make me self-righteous?

Or does it make me someone who cares about your soul and loves you enough to tell you the truth?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I did not accuse these two members of anything. I said, that if someone in the church is elevated to the level of an idol, so that his word is held in esteem over the Word of Christ, and the members of that church engage with him on that level, as an idol, that they, on the whole, are committing idolatry, which is spiritual whoredoms with what is supposed to be the Bride of the Anointed One.

Does that accusation hit the mark? I have no idea. But the witness it preaches is true all the same.

Are you speaking of something on the lines of Gurus, Rebbe Mendel Schneerson, Moses David Berg, or Jim Jones? I was having a discussion tonight and someone brought up Jim Jones. I said he got 900 people to kill themselves? Marshall Applewhite got all the men in his group to castrate themselves (surgically in Mexico) and kill themselves. Yet, I know a group called 12 Tribes headed up by a Yoneq Spriggs. Beards are to be grown by men in their group. Also everyone has to look like they just fell off a Sunday school felt board. Now, it is easy to just say well, those are cults. But the facts are it is part and parcel of all religions. Judaism? People who aren't Jews tend to believe that Judaism is a religion which has elements across the board for its believers. But just like Christianity that has more flavors than Baskin Robbins, Judaism does too. Same thing with Islam. You have hadith Islam, and Quran Only Islam. You have blow me up Islam and your nice friendly Islam, waiting for the day they take over your country. Hinduism is a virtual hodgepodge of different views. But I said all that to say this, the elders, teachers, and preachers in their respective religions have leeway as far as modesty. Mennonites, Amish, Pentecostals, Chabad Lubavitch, Muslims, all have their varying views on what is modest. Again, if you don't like what is going on in a congregation, you are free to leave. You don't like the idea of growing a beard like Rip Van Winkle, or Anton Lavey, then pick up the wife and kids and journey on to the next church of your choice. I have never been the lesser for being in a shave only church. Matter of fact it didn't bother me. My brother that I decided to shave smooth after our argument, wasn't my pastor, wasn't my elder, he was my church brother. No one told me I was going to hell over my fu manchu. It was never presented to me that way. But let's face it, all men have facial hair, even if they shave. In the time of Jesus, Judeans were either clean shaven, or full bearded. Grecian Judeans (Judeans who fully adopted the Greek culture) shaved, but to get into the court of the Judeans it wasn't facial hair that allowed you entry, it was your circumcision. I shave, I like shaving, shave more than ye all. But by the morning I have facial hair, I shave it, and when I get home I have facial hair by the end of the day. Again, never had a problem over shaving my face, never heard any of the brothers go wee wee wee all the way home because they shaved for church. So, for me I don't see all the hub bub. I have a great friend who makes it mandatory to have a beard in church. He is the other side of the coin, but he is not alone. There is always that swing of the pendulum. No beards, you be surprised just swings all the way to must have beards. Yet, in religion one must have balance, it is like swerving a car on sheet ice, if you over compensate in either direction you go off the road. That is your slippery slope. Is it a pastor (one leader) over a church? Or eldership (two or more over a church)? Or inevitably, no leaders at all in the church, just a bless me club over cookies and milk. Their is plenty to debate, and we will be knocking each other out while the house burns down around us. Hey, being Biblical is an awesome endeavor, impacting our world a splendid idea. But bearded or smooth brand new razor clean means nothing if we aren't turning our world upside down. Then you get those who say that the shave only church frightens people off with their BIC razors. No, didn't scare me off, didn't scare off all the brothers I know who shave and are in church. But like I said, to each his own. Don't like one pastor over the church? Leave. Don't like plural eldership? Leave. Don't like bearded song leaders? Get up, and go forth from among them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The pirke avot reads:



This is Rabbinical Judaism (Talmudic) 101. The third part is justified based off of Deuteronomy 22:8, regarding the law to build a fence on the roof of a house so that someone will not accidentally fall from your roof and die and you incur bloodguilt.

The purpose of this fence around the Torah, call khumra in Hebrew, is to protect people from breaking the various inspired laws/commands (mitzvot) of the Torah by adding to the Word additional guides and instructions.

This practice originated with the Pharisees, who predated Christ by over 150 years. The word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew word Perushim, meaning the "separated ones". These men believed that they needed to separate themselves from the norms and cultural customs of their day and live holy lives unto God.

It was a noble pursuit. But after several decades, the various guides and instructions, that is, fences, they built around the Torah became first, traditions, then integrated customs, to norms, to laws, to the extent that, for example, not only were you not supposed to work or do servile work on the Sabbath, you couldn't even carry something in your hand farther than a so-called "Sabbath's Day Journey, which was about 2,000 cubits, without grieving God and causing offense in the community. This is shown in John 9 when the formerly blind man carries his mat at the instruction of Jesus.

And even now, to this day, many religious Jews, devoted to their rabbis and to the Talmud, obey all sorts of strange customs that have no existence in the Holy Scriptures. I worked for years at a high-end resort that hosted a week-long getaway around Passover for a large group of affluent Jewish people.

The resort bent over backward to accommodate this group and their money. The members of the group claimed that because they were on religious holiday, they were prohibited from doing certain things, like turning their own lamps in their rooms on and off, filling and turning on their own cpap devices (I was tasked with that one), pushing their own buttons in an elevator, and if you can believe it, flushing their own toilets.

The hotel staff did all of this for them. We also changed out all the locks to manual locks, surrendered an entire kitchen to their rabbis so it could be made kosher, and etc. The list was endless.

All of these things are nowhere in the Torah, but are merely fences to "help" these folks not break the actual commandments contained within the Law.

Jesus hated this stuff with a passion, so much so, He railed that the Pharisees who practiced such fence building could not go where He was going. They thought He meant He was going to kill Himself, but Jesus meant Heaven. He didn't say they wouldn't go. He said they COULD NOT go, that they were going to die in their sins. Imagine that. The Savior of the World telling a group of people He was going to absolutely refuse to save them (See John 8:21-22).

Do you see how serious this is? This is eternal life and eternal death. Jesus refused to save people over adding fences (man-made, extra-Biblical standards) to the Word of God.

If you see nothing else, at least see this. If you were a Perusha and you prohibited the growth of facial hair on your fellow Jews in order to be in good standing with the synagogue, keeping men from standing up to read the Scriptures, from speaking or exhorting their fellow believers, to say, perhaps, not offend the Romans who shaved regularly as a cultural practice, what do you suppose Jesus would say to you about your fence?

And does asking you this make me self-righteous?

Or does it make me someone who cares about your soul and loves you enough to tell you the truth?

https://products.geappliances.com/ap...ontentId=17357

[jediwill83]

If we as saints are so evil, so wicked and so prone to error and in such need of pastoral overlords to micromanage our most minute decisions...then why should we accept that leadership from one with the same fallible corrupt nature that we apparently possess?



Or are they made of finer clay than we?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

If we as saints are so evil, so wicked and so prone to error and in such need of pastoral overlords to micromanage our most minute decisions...then why should we accept that leadership from one with the same fallible corrupt nature that we apparently possess?



Or are they made of finer clay than we?

Like Ehud said, if you have leadership that is north of Kookoo you need to leave and look elsewhere. Ministry is to guide the neophyte to maturity within the body of the church family. micromanaging is a waste of time due to people who need ( or expect) that sort of mangerging, are high maintenance. They usually end up leaving anyway. But what is left behind are elders who couldn't wait for their departure. They are supposed to do what they do with joy, and not with grief Hebrews 13:17. I don't tell anyone what to do, they need to follow their pastor, who is Jesus Christ. If they can't listen to Him who they can't see, they sure as shooting aren't going to listen to me. Ministers are to point to Jesus. Paul tells the Corinthian church to follow him AS he follows Christ. If he stopped following Christ, or his words and teachings no longer parroted Jesus, they were to not follow. Yet, what you do find in real time, is that people look at follow me as I follow Christ as an out. They in their mind are thinking following Christ is following their own personal Jesus. One that the ministry doesn't know, because it is a formulation within the mind of the individual. It is like when someone goes to a new church family. They are bringing with them their own experiences in Pentecost, and will gauge the new church family and elders by that measuring stick. Sadly, at times the individual has their own ideas on how things should be run, or how they want everyone to behave. This is the flip side to overlord pastor, it is the whiner or troubler maker from another church family. No one ever discusses the pastor or elders who have been beheaded by the Ecclesiastical samurai sword from Sister Biddy Joe, and her husband who hides behind her, Boudreaux. They been in Pentecost since A.D. 33, and know how the cow ate the cabbage, and will be sure to let you know that. So, evil saints? Wicked pastors who know your every step, and move. Apostolic Pentecostalism SHOULD be known for its best examples. Bad examples are just that bad, and therefore they make the good examples stand out even more. Hook up with them.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Like Ehud said, if you have leadership that is north of Kookoo you need to leave and look elsewhere. Ministry is to guide the neophyte to maturity within the body of the church family. micromanaging is a waste of time due to people who need ( or expect) that sort of mangerging, are high maintenance. They usually end up leaving anyway. But what is left behind are elders who couldn't wait for their departure. They are supposed to do what they do with joy, and not with grief Hebrews 13:17. I don't tell anyone what to do, they need to follow their pastor, who is Jesus Christ. If they can't listen to Him who they can't see, they sure as shooting aren't going to listen to me. Ministers are to point to Jesus. Paul tells the Corinthian church to follow him AS he follows Christ. If he stopped following Christ, or his words and teachings no longer parroted Jesus, they were to not follow. Yet, what you do find in real time, is that people look at follow me as I follow Christ as an out. They in their mind are thinking following Christ is following their own personal Jesus. One that the ministry doesn't know, because it is a formulation within the mind of the individual. It is like when someone goes to a new church family. They are bringing with them their own experiences in Pentecost, and will gauge the new church family and elders by that measuring stick. Sadly, at times the individual has their own ideas on how things should be run, or how they want everyone to behave. This is the flip side to overlord pastor, it is the whiner or troubler maker from another church family. No one ever discusses the pastor or elders who have been beheaded by the Ecclesiastical samurai sword from Sister Biddy Joe, and her husband who hides behind her, Boudreaux. They been in Pentecost since A.D. 33, and know how the cow ate the cabbage, and will be sure to let you know that. So, evil saints? Wicked pastors who know your every step, and move. Apostolic Pentecostalism SHOULD be known for its best examples. Bad examples are just that bad, and therefore they make the good examples stand out even more. Hook up with them.

Sadly I do know some of those examples of good Godly well meaning men held hostage by members who dictated what would and would not be taught and preached.


Standing up in church in the midst of a sermon declaring that the pastor was a liar...running good men off because they dared challenge the staus quo...men afraid to preach the truth because the church was a "family " church where over 50% of the members were family.


Ive seen all that mess...lived it and did my best to survive off what scraps I could glean while attending those churches.


What I learned is that there is indeed a God that loves me and cares for me and who speaks.


I learned this not over a pulpit but in a pitch black Sunday School room crying out to God and Him speaking and pouring His Word into my soul.


No I cant speak for "pastors" and what they allow and tolerate. What Ive seen from my own personal experience is a lot of glad handing and back slapping and politicking. Thats whatever...but its confusion when you have a young kid God is leading outside the box who has to make a choice between God...the voice of God backed up by scripture and tradition of the preacher.


Not all of us could leave bro....some of us had to stay due to our age and we were still under our parents and just deal the best we could while still holding true to our faith despite what was going on.


NONE of the people I grew up with are living for God...NONE.