Extra-biblical exaggerations

Though today some are venturing off the reservation so-to-speak, the optimum acceptable appearance for the Apostolic Pentecostal man in good-standing is the “clean-shaven face” (with the quality of your prayer life and overall spirituality being directly tied to and judged by the length of your whiskers. (Not kidding). The scruffy facial hair trend of the 1960’s and all that it represented was understandably pure anathema to the Apostolic Pentecostal holiness practitioner, and it was then that the various hair “doctrines”, in resistance to worldly trends, were solidly cemented into the foundation of holiness teaching.

Long on zeal, but extremely and embarrassingly short on scripture (ZERO), proponents of these “hair doctrines” (uncut hair on women and close-cropped haircut and clean-shaven face on men) consider them to be Apostolic Pentecostal orthodoxy. However, when confronted for biblical substantiation on such strict and imposing requirements, Apostolics, without a biblical leg to stand on, can grow somewhat mealy-mouthed as they make for the exit sign (while tinkering with definitions or maligning the scripture, concocting a bevy of embarrassingly bad rules, pandering to their tradition).

It is not surprising that the same surface-oriented mindset (carnally religious) that is overly preoccupied with physical (circumcistic) externals, specifically with regard to hair, also insists on a non-biblical extreme in those same areas. For those who have perhaps observed Pentecostal women with not just long, but excessively long hair, this is usually the reason. With fire and brimstone, the UNCUT law is thundered from the pulpits, and split-ends are NOT to be trimmed (Also, not kidding). For the hair zealots, to deviate in any way from “their” extreme position automatically classifies you into the opposite “sinful” extreme, in danger of hell-fire.

Legalists = Judaizers

A godly lifestyle is certainly central and vital to the true Christian’s successful walk with God and his eternal security (Tit. 2: 11-12, IIPet. 1: 3-8, Eph. 4: 22-24, Heb. 12:14, IIPet. 3: 10-11). And it is fully understandable that a new Christian, a babe in Christ, whose former life bore the adornment of a depraved and fallen world, would eagerly seek in his zealous repentance, to remove himself as far away as possible from those emblems of his former spiritual bondage, as extreme “cleaning up” actions are encouraged and required (Luke 24: 46-47, Acts 17:30, Rom. ch. 6).

However, the spiritual “arrested development” of a so-called “seasoned” Christian, as demonstrated by his excessive attention to carnal observances, betrays his neglect of the core spiritual disciplines (prayer, Bible, fasting, etc.), thus effecting a spiritual juvenility (or even infantility) which then can manifest as an excessively rigid and legalistic preoccupation with regard to the externals, and in this case, with hair. It is this misguided focus that contributes to the neglect of internal spiritual development, as outer appearances are overvalued, and inner spirituality is overlooked.

Also, for one to maintain a hyper-sensitive predisposition towards invalidating fellow saints (Rom. 14: 3-4, 10) based on their outer appearance and adornment can stumble into sinful territory when said judgement is formed from rigid or otherwise exaggerated, extra-biblical strictures (Jam. 2: 1-4).

There is an instructive similarity between the Judaizers of Paul’s day and the hair-and-formalwear zealots of today, as both are errant in their insistence on a strict adherence to their particular fleshly and unnecessary or exaggerated ordinances, they then conferring righteousness and inclusion based on compliance to their rule.

However, it’s creepier than that, as Paul’s Judaizing contemporaries loved to show off their foreskin trophies, so too many of today’s people-pleasing legalists are preoccupied with prioritizing the judgement of man. Legalists affirm and validate one another by uniformly subscribing to, and enforcing exaggerated or altogether extra-biblical, corporal-religious rules, which unfortunately have been elevated, through scriptural manipulation, to the level of inspired doctrine (Matt. 15:9), their behavioral motivations can be perceived in the following scriptures, with the term “circumcised” being replaced with the phrase “hair and outerwear compliant”. Gal 6:12-13 “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. (13) For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.“

Just as a wariness towards the Jewish concision, and their hybrid version of Christianity, was advised by the apostle Paul, so too caution should be utilized towards any strain of Christianity that emphasizes an allegiance to, and confidence in rigid, extra-biblical external rules while neglecting internal/spiritual development. “…beware of the concision. (3) For WE are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.“ Php. 3: 2-3 (verses 4-6 of Php. 3 indicates that Paul considered “confidence in the flesh” to mean more than just surgical circumcision).

The ghost of Pentecost past

Just who is this aged, Scrooge-like, decrepit, angry minister walking about with a scowl on his face accusingly pointing his finger at you in a “you better do what I say” manner. Why, it’s none other than the ghost of Pentecost past. Wherever the scriptures are sparse or otherwise indeterminate on any particular issue (or even if there are no applicable verses at all), laws are required and there he’ll be to enforce them, the protector of traditions, with threats of banishment and hellfire.

Haunting apparitions aside, has anyone ever considered the unhealthy spiritual condition that can become prevalent as a consequence of over-engaging the fleshly world of fear-based compliance and judgementalism? Is the spiritual dynamism that many have long envisioned and prayed for remained out of reach because it is being sought “…by the works of the law (aka – denominal Pentecostalism) and not by “the hearing of faith?” (Ref. Gal. 3: 2-3). These are legitimate questions to ask as misplaced confidence in carnal denominal Pentecostalism is not spiritually harmless.

Faith deficiency

The concision in Galatia (and most likely in other areas) was apparently somewhat successful in persuading the church there that their faith in Christ and submission to the apostle’s doctrine was simply not enough to obtain righteousness and secure salvation, that they too must submit to Abrahamic circumcision. This error, a “confidence in the flesh” would then compromise, dilute and adulterate the gospel, indicating and resulting in an impure and anemic faith. Weak, watered-down faith prevails as an existential epidemic in the American Apostolic Pentecostal church, as modern-day “Judaizers”, indifferent to the true spiritual faith-building disciplines of prayer, the Word, and a lifestyle of “true holiness”, etc., seek out your spiritual foreskin.

Recently, a leading Apostolic Pentecostal minister confessed that the over-emphasis and preoccupation with the outer appearance of church membership is due primarily to its overt visibility (i.e. what we see and instinctively, quickly evaluate); while the outer-man is stringently policed, the invisible inner-man receives no such scrutiny, potentially leading to the neglect of personal spiritual development. Ironically, this over-policing behavior is itself circumstantial evidence of a spiritual deficiency, and the fruit of neglected spiritual disciplines does eventually manifest.

Pentecostal Paradigm Shift

A wholesale correction returning to “nature’s lesson” would require an unlikely shift in the Pentecostal paradigm, as Apostolic Pentecostal Christian identity is deeply intertwined with a rigid, legalistic, exaggerated interpretation of ICor. 11: 1-16, a meticulously clean-shaven face, outerwear compliance. Unwilling or unable to make the correlation between the error and imposition of unnecessary circumcision in the early church, with the excessive “hair and formalwear” requirement of today reveals a surprising lack of ethic in a ministerial class otherwise known for its spiritual and biblical excellence – an unfortunate testimony to the power of tradition. Also, I was disappointed to hear another prominent Apostolic Pentecostal minister confess that the removal of facial hair on men was a biblical mandate similar to circumcision, not realizing he was openly confessing to his “Judaizing” adulteration of the Gospel and blatant Matt. 15:9 Pharisaism.

Supposing Paul to have descended the mountain with a stone tablet of unique and exclusive hair commandments for God’s holy people, Pentecostal hair extremists refuse to evaluate ICorinthians 11:1-16 contextually as simply an admonition to a carnal and quirky Corinthian church to restore and respect nature’s norms concerning hair length, as already depicted in the vast majority of the human population.

Judge in Yourselves (an anecdotal observation)

Some years ago, I was prayerfully studying this subject and took note that in ICor. 11:13, Paul invited the Corinthians, and by extension the church-at-large and all Bible readers to consider the primary issue at hand when he says “Judge in yourselves: is it comely (suitable, proper) that a woman pray unto God uncovered? And so, I did (judge in myself) and concluded with a shoulder shrug that I didn’t know what hair length had to do with a woman’s (or man’s) prayer. Then Paul’s next statement, composed of the next two verses bubbled up in my mind, “(14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering”. And again, I answered honestly, “No God, nature doesn’t teach me this lesson, I don’t see it in nature anywhere”. Laughably, the word “nature” had caused me to look to nature in-the-wild (trees, clouds, forests rivers, mountains, animals, etc) for the lesson that Paul said it would teach me about hair-length. I can remember it like it was yesterday (it was over 35 years ago) when the Holy Ghost said, “not nature in the wild, but nature in the human family”, 🙄Doh!”. After this kindly correction from God, my understanding opened up to realize that a solid 75-80% of the world is easily in an acceptable compliance with God’s natural order concerning hair length, with God’s innate nature as their teacher.

And Finally

Once the text gets reshuffled, ICor. 11:16 becomes the Pentecostal hair zealots’ intimidation verse. If all else fails, all “contentions” can be brought to an immediate end by simply saying “we have no such custom” to be contentious about hair length. This is an eyerolling, laughably bad interpretation of this verse, clearly something the militant ghost of Pentecost past would’ve cooked up.   

Rather than rearranging and manipulating the words in ICor. 11:16 to fit a predetermined doctrinal narrative, a better study of this verse would read like… “But if any man seem to be contentious…“, (his contention is with God and God’s nature because)“…we have no such custom (that is, hair length, through nature, is regulated by God and is not a unique teaching of the church) neither the churches of God”. And for those who need to hear it one more time, ICor. 11: 3:16 is Paul’s echoing of God’s nature’s lesson to a carnality-afflicted church that was, in their Corinthian style of “liberty”, playing way outside-the-lines in more ways than one, the apostle then correcting their extreme behavior.

GS