A cultural curveball

By the 1950’s the Apostolic Pentecostal church in America, having experienced an epochal measure of restoration in early 20th century America, enjoyed a tepid peace with that era’s culturally defined decorum of modesty and outer uprightness. However, the halcyon “happy days” of the 1950’s gave way to the dark and depraved days of the “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll” “cultural revolution” of the 1960’s, and to make matters worse, the relatively new invention of the television was conveniently there to feed the societal rot directly into America’s living rooms. If you happened to be alive during this time you know that Hair truly became an issue both within and without the church, as society’s counterculture “revolutionaries”, rebelling against decency itself and in somewhat of a Corinthian fashion – that is, abandoning nature’s norms -, sought to “liberate” themselves from what they errantly assumed to be the restrictive social constructs of man-made origin.

However, for those otherwise well-intentioned, but spiritually underdeveloped Apostolics whose primary war-cry errantly focused on the target-rich battlefield of the flesh- the outer man, reactionary resistance to one extreme often resulted in the zealous and rigid embracing of the other, allowing themselves through devilish trickery to be manipulated into fighting flesh with flesh, from which extreme position they characteristically judge and divide.

The carnal and excessive preoccupation with “confidence in the flesh” and its subsequent judgementalism, reveals a spiritual deficiency of this modern-day concision, and instead of the removal of foreskins, it is the removal or non-removal of hair that is at issue. Hair length for men and women falls squarely into the external “holiness doctrine” category for Apostolic Pentecostals. This, along with their “no facial hair” rule, are all maintained with a white-knuckled grip to that (pre-60’s) 1950’s zeitgeist of perceived innocence and decency, a grip so tight they still haven’t let go.

Errant, but understandable

In a category by itself, being specifically referenced by the apostle Paul, hair “doctrine” is but one area of a wider set of customs regarding the outer appearance/”holiness standards” of today’s Apostolic Pentecostal. With imbalanced convictions weighted towards the externals and despite a well-established biblical rebuke (Matt. 23:5, 25-28), legalist zealots with the same rigid scrutiny and extremism applied to hair lengths, insist a similar rule be imposed upon one’s whole body as clothing and outer adornment, like hair, is regulated and noted.

A hyper preoccupation with formalism and statute-like legalisms, a “holiness standard” for the outer man, can often be a strong indicator of an otherwise underdeveloped inner man as devotional energies are focused and spent on one’s physical appearance with group social acceptance and assimilation (uniformity) unfortunately being prioritized over true spiritual development.

Depending on the person, there can be many different ingredients contributing to the psycho-spiritual stew that drives the overzealous ideas and behavior regarding an emphasis on the (physical) outer man while neglecting the (spiritual) inner man. For many the impetus at the core of this error can be understood in the following scenario: – Demonstrating a metaphor for one’s life of devotion, while raising his hands to shoulder height, the minister said, “If the Lord wants me to raise my hands this high, I want to raise them even higher”, as he further raised his hands up to full extension – This analogy thus encouraging a willingness and zeal to go above and beyond what “the Lord wants” (This is not unlike the boy who awoke to find his father had left a note asking him to mow the front lawn. After mowing, bagging and discarding the front lawn, the boy happily mowed, bagged and discarded the backyard lawn as well, thinking this would doubly please his father. However, the father returned with a small flock of sheep planning on orienting them with their new home by feeding them the backyard grass; the father was patient with his son’s error, but it was an error nevertheless). Though there may be some virtue in the sentiment as depicted by the hand-raising minister, (and though the lawn-mowing boy’s motivations were pure), I maintain that if the Lord wants you to raise your hands to shoulder height, shoulder height is where they should be, as he surely has his own reasons for it and you can’t improve on God, with any supposed “improvement”, a fleshly effort, is errant and tends toward self-righteousness. “…Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” ISam:22.

Consider the values in the above “hand-raising” metaphor measured on a Bell Curve.

Following the blue line from the negative (left) position of the graph and inclining to the zero (center) value position at the peak of the Bell represents lifting one’s hands to shoulder height (“where God wants them”/ the will of God according to the metaphor). It is errantly assumed that if one continues to lift their hands “higher to full extension”, which would be represented by the blue line continuing in its 45-degree pattern up and outside of the top of the graph, that one can increase and improve on the will of God by their own willful zeal and extra exertion. However, the Bell Curve tells the real story as it demonstrates that fleshly contribution to the will of God, represented by the downward trending of the blue line on the right side of the graph, no matter how sincere, will tend only to diminish, not contribute to God’s way. (Sure, the property owner (above) was proud of his nice, freshly manicured lawn as neighbors drove by and admired, but the bleating sheep went hungry).

True holiness is not the problem

This is not to dismiss the biblical – spiritual, and happily welcomed requirement of scripturally defined, and always improving holiness (IICor. 7:1) with regard to one’s appearance and lifestyle, but it is to encourage a proper balance and orientation with it, while resisting the fleshly/pharisaical temptation towards formalism and its artificial righteousness (though cloaked in religiosity, pharisaical natured observances are equally as putrid as their “pollutions of the world” cousins). As referenced above, while chiding the Pharisees Jesus said “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (26) Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” Matt. 23: 25-26. Along with the bigger principle, the wording of v. 26 would seem to indicate that the outside of the cup and platter becomes properly cleansed as a consequence of the inside being purposely cleansed, and definitely not the other way around. Likewise with fruit-bearing, as fruit is not artificially hung on a tree (unless it is a fake tree), genuine fruit is a natural outgrowth of internal processes.

Excepting for biblical specifics concerning one’s adornment, and there are some, it appears that the consistent biblical rule of holiness to guide one’s outer appearance (the outside of the cup and platter) can be summed up in one word: modesty (Synonyms: decency, humility, propriety, purity, reticence, simplicity, virtue, chastity, constraint, discreetness, humbleness, innocence, meekness, quietness, reserve, timidity, etc.), Matt. 6: 25-33, ITim. 2: 9-10, Jam. 2: 1-5, IPet. 3: 1-5; with such outward modesty being the authentic fruit of the inward. The word (modesty) itself is antithetical to the idea of a rigid extreme.

For members-in-good-standing however, “churching” is often a formal affair, as for many if not most, the wearing of one’s “Sunday best” (church uniform) is the contemporary pharisaical mantra and practice. However, it is not solely the clothing (or the hair, or even the pedigree), but it is the misguided confidence and excessive religious esteem in those things that is ultimately the error.

Whether it’s in circumcision or broadened phylacteries or Gucci, we are cautioned against misplaced preoccupation and confidence in our fleshly exterior while we are to remain humble in style and modest (holy) in appearance.

To “custom” or not to “custom”, does it really matter?

Concerning hair, despite the fact that the apostle Paul was simply echoing and reaffirming the lesson of nature which, as he said, did not rise to the level of a common “custom” for the early church (ICor. 11: 14-16), legalists on the other hand, preferring a more commanding Law-like tone from the apostle on this as well as all external issues, again “toy” with a text definition as the word “such”- (toioutos) in v. 16, curiously becomes the word “other”- (allos) in some alternate Bible versions. However, a side-by-side analysis of the 2 words (“such” and “other”) in the text setting reveals 2 closely set parallel roads arriving at the same destination more-or-less…

“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no SUCH custom, neither the churches of God.” With a straight face, hair law proponents manipulate this verse (16) to imply that Paul’s “no such custom” phrase is in reference to being contentious (to read, “we have no such custom to be contentious”…about hair length) and not a reference to, as it reads, the absence of any formal church dictate concerning hair length, Paul having cited and echoed nature’s lesson, not a church lesson. As a metaphor- with nature and nature’s God as the legislation Author, chief Prosecutor and Judge in the matter (of natural hair length on men and women), Paul dismisses any potential contention by removing the church from being the asst. prosecutor in the case. (In other words, hair length is not a unique church teaching or “custom”, but a phenomenon of God manifesting in human nature and therefore should be honored and especially recognized in the God’s church, however, not formalized as a “custom” or mandate).

-OR-

“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no OTHER custom, neither the churches of God.” Though demonstrated in nature throughout the wide majority of the human family, this phrasing would imply that Paul’s teaching on hair length IS also formalized by the church as a “custom”- (sunetheia: mutual habituation). Paul dismisses any potential contention by claiming the church’s only custom regarding hair length is compliance with God’s natural order as described in ICor. 11: 3-16.

Failing to understand that God’s lesson on hair is taught through (human) nature and having properly misdefined (the word “long”) and having deceitfully twisted the scripture (ICor. 11:16), Apostolic Pentecostals endeavor to distinguish themselves from unbelievers and the denominal church world, most of whom who are unwittingly in compliance with God’s natural lesson, by requiring their membership to submit to their rigid extreme (i.e. uncut hair for women, military style haircut and no facial hair for men).

Also note, though this issue is only addressed directly to the church in Corinth, Paul’s statement at the end of verse 16 (above) “…neither the churches of God” indicates that the rule of “no rule” (other than nature’s rule, which might be echoed from time to time as needed) was a universal practice throughout all of the church. This is to say that, though this issue is not mentioned in other epistles doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t addressed or wouldn’t be addressed to those churches if necessary. However, in the balance of the epistles, it apparently wasn’t necessary. Remember, Corinth was a little “out there”.

(To be continued)