Marty Ballestero doesn't LIKE facial hair on men!!

MissBrattified · #1 06-01-2014, 02:36 PM

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction.

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/...ntecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress.

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument. It's simple regurgitation of the old, tired, "hippie movement" argument, with minimal effort at relabeling for a new decade. Now it's mainly that it comes with an "attitude", and "don't even get me started on tattoos", because obviously facial hair on men and tattoos go hand in hand. (Although the former is NATURAL and latter is an unnatural, permanent alteration of the human body. That doesn't matter at all, though.)

FYI, MB used zero scriptural support for his opinions. That's really only notable because we all know that if he had scripture to throw around, he would have definitely bombed us with it. It isn't surprising, though. Since when do we need scripture to make people feel inferior?

I plodded through this bit by bit last night, while I was trying to stay awake waiting on laundry to finish. Most of MB's blog excerpts are bolded below, with my comments following:

Point #1: "I don't like facial hair on pentecostal men."

I'm tempted to say, "Who cares?" but that seems flippant.

Here's the deal: I don't particularly LIKE Crocs. You know--those uber-practical but super ugly waterproof rubber shoes that some people adore? Yeah. The fact that I don't like them doesn't make them WRONG for anyone, especially in the "That's a SIN" sense, so it pretty much stops with me having an opinion and that. is. all. I also don't LIKE BBQ all that much, which is quite a problem since my husband is a Magnificent BBQ Chef and calling THAT a sin would probably lead to a split right down the center of our household.

Bottom line: Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with "sin" and "not sin" or even "beneficial/expedient" or "not beneficial/not expedient." For the amateurs out there, using the beneficial/expedient loophole is the pretty way of saying "I would prefer you not to do ______ simply because I don't like it. Based on the Apostle Paul's relevant comments, I have clearance to call it 'not expedient' and get away with bossing you around."

Point #2: Did They Have Facial Hair In Bible Days? Yes.

Well. Thanks for summing that up for us, MB. Nicely done. Next. No, wait--not so fast. There's more and it's better.

"...The wearing of beards was certainly mentioned in the Bible. The case could be made that most of our heroes in the Old Testament wore facial hair.

Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures.

However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear.

Many Hispanic and black men feel that wearing a mustache is symbolic of masculinity. So automatically the cultural thing is throw down like an non-debatable subject. Of course that debate ignores the church’s culture."

Hmm. Consider this opening paragraph:
"Look at the sculptures of Roman times. Look again at the statues of the Caesars. They depict Gentile men wearing short hair, and no beards. They were the style leaders of their day. They depicted the dress of their generation. Evidently the world custom at that was not beard wearing for all men, especially not Gentile men."

We can assume that MB is going to make the leap that current "church culture" is akin to the ancient Roman/Greek culture and that makes it okay to ban beards. Or some such mess. Unfortunately, he exposes one of the many holes in his own arguments with this: "Evidently the world custom at that [time?]...."

Excuse me, Sir, but are you attempting to argue against the allegedly worldly custom of beard-wearing by pointing out how it was the worldly custom of Romans/Greeks (aka, Gentiles) in New Testament times? Do I really need to point out how illogical that is?

E.g., It is NOT okay to model your face after worldly customs of the present day, but it IS okay to model your face after worldly customs so long as they are ancient.

There's also another glaring problem here, in which MB reveals that he marks no distinction between church culture and white culture. When he points out that Hispanic and black men argue "culture" when it comes to facial hair and then says that the debate ignores "church culture", he means that he considers Hispanics and black churches to be separate from mainstream church culture. He may not have meant to say that, but it is certainly what he DID say.

Point #3: My Question Is, Why The Facial Hair Comeback?

Why now? Can we get some clarity here? It appears that for awhile there was a TREND of men being clean-shaven, and now that it's trying to fade, some ministers are trying to bring it back. [TIC]

What for? What for? That's like asking, "Why do you grow your eyebrows out? What for?"

What is gained in the Spirit by men wearing facial hair? What is gained in the Spirit by men shaving their faces?

How is the church strengthened by that acceptance? How is the church weakened by that acceptance?

Do Pentecostal men wear them because it’s popular in the world? Seriously? I see secular men every day who are clean shaven! Why, then, is it only called “worldly” or “popular in the world” if you want to have facial hair? Let's cherry pick what's worldly so it fits with the list of things we want to allow. Consistency be kicked to the curb.

How does it further outreach? Dear Lord. Have mercy. I can’t take the senseless questions.

Why did our new converts shave their beards and mustaches off when they got the Holy Ghost?

Simple: Because they wanted to look like everyone else at church, and they conformed. It doesn’t mean God spoke to them or they had a divine revelation or that HE convicted them. It means one of two things: Either they felt CONDEMNED by people around them who indicated they needed to shave OR it was silent peer pressure. That’s it. It wasn’t a God thing or else it would be backed up with scripture like every other doctrine we preach and teach. Right? We do our best to stick to scripture after the manner of real Apostolics...right? RIGHT?

[Cont.]

MissBrattified · #2 06-01-2014, 02:52 PM

Point #4: Why the long absence of facial hair in conservative Pentecostal Apostolic ranks? (and other annoying questions)

Well, that would be because of platform guidelines, local church rules, pastoral preferences and even organizational-wide rules against it. Sometimes, it was even because ministers preached that you would go to hell for having facial hair. I know firsthand; I’ve been at those conferences. Some of the guest speakers also preached that you would go to hell for holding a membership card with any man-made organization, which is ironic since they don’t mind preaching man-made rules and making them equal to God. Believe it or not, Pentecostals like to obey their pastors, and they do obey them—more than you might think. The thing is, they’re just doing what they’re told in many cases; it’s not about the personal convictions of saints. It’s about saints following the convictions or preferences of their pastors. When they stop being told to do it, they’ll move on, because it was NEVER a GOD THING; it was a MAN[made] thing.

Btw, I'm not saying that saints being obedient is a bad thing; not at all. I'm saying Heaven help the minister who takes advantage of meekness to get his own way.

If it was deemed wrong then, why is it ok now? I don’t know. Maybe the same way that some preachers deemed “radio” wrong at one point, but pretty much EVERYONE has moved on and decided that’s no longer necessary. Funny how you’re not allowed to reverse the logic. “If it was deemed okay then, why is it bad now?”

Point #5: If Facial Hair Today Is So Proper, Why Then Does It Cause Men Of Honor To Distance Themselves From All Those Who Permit Such? Why Then Does It Separate Good Men? There’s A Reason!

Super Elitist Assumption Alert: the men who are distancing themselves from other CHRISTIAN men over facial hair are the “men of honor.” YES, there’s a reason for that separation. It’s called “not loving your brother”, “seditions” and “thinking of yourself more highly than you ought.” Here's a scripturally-backed reminder: We're supposed to separate ourselves from the world; not from our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Oh, yay. More questions.

I’ll paraphrase:

What are you beard wearers trying to prove? Don’t you look like your old “unsaved” self with your facial hair?

Assumption: That beard wearers are trying to prove a point, and that they aren’t simply being masculine, which is a God-given, innate quality to be appreciated and encouraged—especially by any movement truly interested in gender distinction. Apparently gender distinction issues are only important as they relate to women.

Other assumption: That the beard wearers are reverting. Guys, beware; if you start wearing that Grey Flannel, we’ll assume you’re going back to your sinner roots. Don’t you want to leave that junk in the past? Acqua Di Gio or nothing, boys. That’s the only cologne making it through the pearly gates.

Here’s another confusing point (#Something). MB says, “If We Took A Poll And Asked Pentecostal Men Why They Are Wearing Beards, What Would Be Their Response To:”

He then proceeds to ask them (hypothetical questions and answers I assume) if they are going charismatic, backslid, in rebellion, or wearing facial hair because they think it makes them look cool. MB has answered all the questions with “No.” MB accepts the first three no’s (I’m thinking reluctantly) and disputes the fourth one—even though he answered question #4 with a hypothetical negative. My brain is pretty much spinning at this point….

Anyhoo. MB follows up his illogical question and answer session with this: “Does your facial hair tell others that you have a flaming pride issue?” “If you don’t think pride is involved in wearing of facial hair, just try to preach it off of those who have it. Every wearer I’ve met is fiercely defensive.”

Surprise, surprise. People get defensive when you cross personal boundaries, especially when it’s for no good reason, other than you don’t “like it.” I mean, if you can show me somewhere that GOD doesn’t want me to wear deodorant, I’ll try to make do with baby powder, but otherwise I am going to cover up that all-naturale underarm sweat and it’s really no one else’s business. At least, it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business. People are going to get annoyed when you ask them to make personal sacrifices for YOU. They might not get annoyed with GOD over it, although it might be on their “I’m going to ask Him about this when I get to Heaven” list, but they will get annoyed with you. Trust me, if you start demanding that I don’t wear deodorant, I’m going to get annoyed and that doesn’t make me rebellious or mean I have a Flaming Pride Issue. It means I have a “I Sweat Like A Boy” issue and “Thank God I Was Born In the 21st Century Of Effective Deodorants” attitude.

Point #7 (Maybe?):

“(I don’t understand this generation’s interest in tattoos or facial hair. Don’t even get me started on tattoos…)
Thanks, I feel better now! You will too… after you go shave!”

MB stated that facial hair was common in Bible days, with our Bible heroes, early Pentecostal men, in the 60’s and 70’s and yet he is saying this is about “this generation’s” interest in…facial hair? It's old--really old--but new again? The contradictions are mind-boggling. Okay, not really. They're just annoying. Calculus is mind-boggling.

Some of my questions are:

Why would any minister want to use his platform and God-granted influence with the saints of God over something so trivial and divisive?
Do ministers really believe this is what God called them to do? To sow seeds of sedition? To slap down valid complaints regarding gender distinction, masculinity and culture because they doesn't fit the church culture/Apostolic Identity those ministers have in mind?
What if GOD has in mind an Apostolic body of believers whose identity has everything to do with being filled with the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus?
What if that identity is the one that brings us together, and we don't have to morph people into some white, European "look" in order for them to fit into HIS Church?
What if we aren't really supposed to be looking to ancient Gentiles for their style leadership?
What if "style" has nothing to do with the Church at all?
What if God envisions a church that is diverse in culture but unified by His name?
What if facial hair doesn't matter and you make it matter and miss the mark?
What if scripture matters and teaching doctrines that are extra-biblical displeases God? Does that matter?

ILG · #3 06-01-2014, 03:06 PM

I never did agree with this stance, even in my ultra-con days....

MissBrattified · #4 06-01-2014, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

I never did agree with this stance, even in my ultra-con days....

Ugh! It just makes me want to do this:

So stinkin' petty and ridiculous.

n david · #5 06-01-2014, 03:20 PM

I take it he's not a fan of Phil Robertson or Duck Dynasty?

FlamingZword · #6 06-01-2014, 03:36 PM

Unlike him I will not call into question Mr. Martyn salvation
I simply point out that God accepts idiots in his kingdom for Mr. Martyn is a first class idiot.

Rose · #7 06-01-2014, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

To clarify: MB doesn't like facial hair on PENTECOSTAL men, because that's a really, really important distinction.

http://martynballestero.com/2014/05/...ntecostal-men/

Here I was thinking that THIS topic--maybe just THIS ONE--was finally a moot point. That maybe, just maybe, we were moving on from quibbling over men having hair on their faces in a teeny, tiny show of progress.

No, apparently not, and the new argument is not even a valid attempt at rehashing the old argument.

Ditto...just had this same conversation with a very young couple. They stopped attending at UPC because the church allowed goatee and or beards on the platform. Very disappointed that this is still an issue in some churches.