Does our appearance for Christ make a difference?

[HappyChristian]

I guess one question I would have is, who are the ones making the "snide comments" about "the dyke church" and thinking the women are lesbians..

This was my question, John (thanks, Annie). Who is making those snide comments? Are they Christians? If they are, they have their own set of problems they need to deal with spiritually. If it's the lost, then, what's the big deal? The lost criticize Christians if the DO look different and if the DON'T look different...that isn't to say I think Christians should dress like the world. I totally believe we should not follow the fads and fashions of the world. But as in another thread, you stated that what goes on in that church (the kentucky one) is their business...so, too, wouldn't it, be the individual church's business as to hair?

[John81]

This was my question, John (thanks, Annie). Who is making those snide comments? Are they Christians? If they are, they have their own set of problems they need to deal with spiritually. If it's the lost, then, what's the big deal? The lost criticize Christians if the DO look different and if the DON'T look different...that isn't to say I think Christians should dress like the world. I totally believe we should not follow the fads and fashions of the world. But as in another thread, you stated that what goes on in that church (the kentucky one) is their business...so, too, wouldn't it, be the individual church's business as to hair?

Those making the lesbian comments are lost and professing Christians. The problem is, the churches attempting to do outreach are having problems because they are seen as not appearing to be Christians. This is similar to what I mentioned before about the leather jackets I used to wear and the man who had long hair when he was saved. Testimonies were damaged, witnessing became difficult. In smaller areas especially, once something gets going it spreads everywhere.

The church with the interracial policy established that for within the church. They don't take that message to the public and they don't wear signs about it. Our hair, our clothes, our word usage, etc., are all see by the public and reflect to many either good or bad.

A Mennonite group not that far from here decided to change their stance on dress. Instead of the traditional black and white, plain and very modest attire they used to wear (along with all the other Mennonites in the area), they decided to allow various colors and some more modern styles. For the most part, from what little I've seen of them, their dress is still modest. That doesn't mean all the other Mennonites in the area don't now view them as having fallen to the world. There is also a problem with non-Mennonites in the area viewing the "liberated" Mennonite girls as being worth targetting for attention (you know what I mean).

For most of us, what these "liberated" Mennonites are now wearing would be considered modest and appropriate but their new appearance is sending the wrong message both to fellow area Mennonites as well as the local non-Mennonites.

[JerryNumbers]

I'm sorry LuAnne, what's your question? If I check back after more than an hour or so clicking on the go to first unread post button sends me to the last post made, not the the first unread post. Sometimes I miss posts because of this.

Good thought John, but many never think of it, and many says they live to their self, & whatever they do is only their business, & they're not responsible for others. That is far from the truth, no matter who we are, someone is looking up to us, & we must not let our Lord down, setting the best example we can.

Ro 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself

Ro 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

No one liveth to their self, & those that deny this they will go about their life putting up stumblingblocks in the path of many, especiall weak brothers & sisters, & for those that are lost they will set a very bad exaple.

Many think they can go back & look at what others have done, what those of yesterday years have done, & if they have done it, it justifies them. That is a lie. Jesus is the one that set the example for us to follow, & the Word of God is what we will be judge by, so the Bible should be our guide, not some pictures of people from yesterday years, nor what we see others do that claim to be Christians.

Oh, & look at what this says when we start measuring our self among our selves, comparing themselves to others, they are not wise.

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[rancher824]

Good thought John, but many never think of it, and many says they live to their self, & whatever they do is only their business, & they're not responsible for others. That is far from the truth, no matter who we are, someone is looking up to us, & we must not let our Lord down, setting the best example we can.

Ro 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself

Ro 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

No one liveth to their self, & those that deny this they will go about their life putting up stumblingblocks in the path of many, especiall weak brothers & sisters, & for those that are lost they will set a very bad exaple.

Many think they can go back & look at what others have done, what those of yesterday years have done, & if they have done it, it justifies them. That is a lie. Jesus is the one that set the example for us to follow, & the Word of God is what we will be judge by, so the Bible should be our guide, not some pictures of people from yesterday years, nor what we see others do that claim to be Christians.

Oh, & look at what this says when we start measuring our self among our selves, comparing themselves to others, they are not wise.

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

I believe ( might should wait and let rick clarify) that the point of the pictures was that the statement about (and I am not wording it exactly the way it was) a mans hair should be above his ears was universally accepted until the 20th century is a false premise. Even if those men he pictured were in sin for the length of there hair, they prove the statement wrong. My pastor (Dad) says it is wrong to try to prove a truth by using a bible passage out of context. I believe the same is true about proving a truth with a lie (I am not saying John was lying, for I think he was simply not seeing the facts correctly, and made a incorrect statement, so I guess untrue statement would be more correct). And many here will dislike this statement, but I figure if we could see the way our Lord wore his hair while here on the earth it would not meet up to our strict interpratation of short!! I also do not believe he wore it as long as the pictures you see depict.

[John81]

I believe ( might should wait and let rick clarify) that the point of the pictures was that the statement about (and I am not wording it exactly the way it was) a mans hair should be above his ears was universally accepted until the 20th century is a false premise. Even if those men he pictured were in sin for the length of there hair, they prove the statement wrong. My pastor (Dad) says it is wrong to try to prove a truth by using a bible passage out of context. I believe the same is true about proving a truth with a lie (I am not saying John was lying, for I think he was simply not seeing the facts correctly, and made a incorrect statement, so I guess untrue statement would be more correct). And many here will dislike this statement, but I figure if we could see the way our Lord wore his hair while here on the earth it would not meet up to our strict interpratation of short!! I also do not believe he wore it as long as the pictures you see depict.

Actually, I never said anything about a mans hair and his ears. As much as possible I've tried to keep away from any specific determinations as to actual lengths on men or women. Women are to have long hair, men are to have short hair. There is room for different lengths within the broad "long" category as well as the broad (though not as broad as the long) "short" category. You seem to be saying something similar.

[blossom]

My hair when wet is half way down my back so technically it is long by anyones definition. However when dry it is so curly that it bounces up to just above my shoulders which some call too short. One of my Sunday school kids commented on this. Her Mum then pulled down one of my curls and the child was super suprised. Looks can be decieving and one should know the whole matter before answering to it. My hair is exactly how my husband likes it and that's the way it'll stay.

[rancher824]

Actually, I never said anything about a mans hair and his ears. As much as possible I've tried to keep away from any specific determinations as to actual lengths on men or women. Women are to have long hair, men are to have short hair. There is room for different lengths within the broad "long" category as well as the broad (though not as broad as the long) "short" category. You seem to be saying something similar.

Your right, you did not mention the ears. I should have left that part out. It is just one of those points most mention when talking about the length of a mans hair.

[ThePilgrim]

This does not answer how we should dress or not dress but it does tell us who we are to behave like. It is from Matthew Henry's Commentary.

God bless,
Larry


Romans 15:1-4

Rom 15:1-4
Condescension and Self-denial; Tenderness and Generosity. ( A.D. 58.)
1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
The apostle here lays down two precepts, with reasons to enforce them, showing the duty of the strong Christian to consider and condescend to the weakest.
I. We must bear the infirmities of the weak, v. 1. We all have our infirmities; but the weak are more subject to them than others—the weak in knowledge or grace, the bruised reed and the smoking flax. We must consider these; not trample upon them, but encourage them, and bear with their infirmities. If through weakness they judge and censure us, and speak evil of us, we must bear with them, pity them, and not have our affections alienated from them. Alas! it is their weakness, they cannot help it. Thus Christ bore with his weak disciples, and apologised for them. But there is more in it; we must also bear their infirmities by sympathizing with them, concerning ourselves for them, ministering strength to them, as there is occasion. This is bearing one another's burdens.
II. We must not please ourselves, but our neighbour, v. 1,2. We must deny our own humour, in consideration of our brethren's weakness and infirmity.
1. Christians must not please themselves. We must not make it our business to gratify all the little appetites and desires of our own heart; it is good for us to cross ourselves sometimes, and then we shall the better bear others crossing of us. We shall be spoiled (as Adonijah was) if we be always humoured. The first lesson we have to learn is to deny ourselves, Matt 16:24.
2. Christians must please their brethren. The design of Christianity is to soften and meeken the spirit, to teach us the art of obliging and true complaisance; not to be servants to the lust of any, but to the necessities and infirmities of our brethren—to comply with all that we have to do with as fare as we can with a good conscience. Christians should study to be pleasing. As we must not please ourselves in the use of our Christian liberty (which was allowed us, not for our own pleasure, but for the glory of God and the profit and edification of others), so we must please our neighbour. How amiable and comfortable a society would the church of Christ be if Christians would study to please one another, as now we see them commonly industrious to cross, and thwart, and contradict one another!—Please his neighbour, not in every thing, it is not an unlimited rule; but for his good, especially for the good of his soul: not please him by serving his wicked wills, and humouring him in a sinful way, or consenting to his enticements, or suffering sin upon him; this is a base way of pleasing our neighbour to the ruin of his soul: if we thus please men, we are not the servants of Christ; but please him for his good; not for our own secular good, or to make a prey of him, but for his spiritual good.—To edification, that is, not only for his profit, but for the profit of others, to edify the body of Christ, by studying to oblige one another. The closer the stones lie, and the better they are squared to fit one another, the stronger is the building. Now observe the reason why Christians must please one another: For even Christ pleased not himself. The self-denial of our Lord Jesus is the best argument against the selfishness of Christians. Observe,
(1.) That Christ pleased not himself. He did not consult his own worldly credit, ease, safety, nor pleasure; he had not where to lay his head, lived upon alms, would not be made a king, detested no proposal with greater abhorrence than that, Master, spare thyself, did not seek his own will (John 5:30), washed his disciples' feet, endured the contradiction of sinners against himself, troubled himself (John 11:33), did not consult his own honour, and, in a word, emptied himself, and made himself of no reputation: and all this for our sakes, to bring in a righteousness for us, and to set us an example. His whole life was a self-denying self-displeasing life. He bore the infirmities of the weak, Heb 4:15.
(2.) That herein the scripture was fulfilled: As it is written, The reproaches of those that reproached thee fell on me. This is quoted out of Ps 69:9, the former part of which verse is applied to Christ (John 2:17), The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the latter part here; for David was a type of Christ, and his sufferings of Christ's sufferings. It is quoted to show that Christ was so far from pleasing himself that he did in the highest degree displease himself. Not as if his undertaking, considered on the whole, were a task and grievance to him, for he was very willing to it and very cheerful in it; but in his humiliation the content and satisfaction of natural inclination were altogether crossed and denied. He preferred our benefit before his own ease and pleasure. This the apostle chooses to express in scripture language; for how can the things of the Spirit of God be better spoken of than in the Spirit's own words? And this scripture he alleges, The reproaches of those that reproached thee fell on me. [1.] The shame of those reproaches, which Christ underwent. Whatever dishonour was done to God was a trouble to the Lord Jesus. He was grieved for the hardness of people's hearts, beheld a sinful place with sorrow and tears. When the saints were persecuted, Christ so far displeased himself as to take what was done to them as done against himself: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Christ also did himself endure the greatest indignities; there was much of reproach in his sufferings. [2.] The sin of those reproaches, for which Christ undertook to satisfy; so many understand it. Every sin is a kind of reproach to God, especially presumptuous sins; now the guilt of these fell upon Christ, when he was made sin, that is, a sacrifice, a sin-offering for us. When the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all, and he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree, they fell upon him as upon our surety. Upon me be the curse. This was the greatest piece of self-displacency that could be: considering his infinite spotless purity and holiness, the infinite love of the Father to him, and his eternal concern for his Father's glory, nothing could be more contrary to him, nor more against him, than to be made sin and a curse for us, and to have the reproaches of God fall upon him, especially considering for whom he thus displeased himself, for strangers, enemies, and traitors, the just for the unjust, 1 Peter 3:18. This seems to come in as a reason why we should bear the infirmities of the weak. We must not please ourselves, for Christ pleased not himself; we must bear the infirmities of the weak, for Christ bore the reproaches of those that reproached God. He bore the guilt of sin and the curse for it; we are only called to bear a little of the trouble of it. He bore the presumptuous sins of the wicked; we are called only to bear the infirmities of the weak.—Even Christ;
kai gar ho Christos.
Even he who was infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, who needed not us nor our services,—even he who thought it no robbery to be equal with God, who had reason enough to pleas himself, and no reason to be concerned, much less to be crossed, for us,—even he pleased not himself, even he bore our sins. And should not we be humble, and self-denying, and ready to consider one another, who are members one of another?
(3.) That therefore we must go and do likewise: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. [1.] That which is written of Christ, concerning his self-denial and sufferings, is written for our learning; he hath left us an example. If Christ denied himself, surely we should deny ourselves, from a principle of ingenuousness and of gratitude, and especially of conformity to his image. The example of Christ, in what he did and said, is recorded for our imitation. [2.] That which is written in the scriptures of the Old Testament in the general is written for our learning. What David had said in his own person Paul had just now applied to Christ. Now lest this should look like a straining of the scripture, he gives us this excellent rule in general, that all the scriptures of the Old Testament (much more those of the New) were written for our learning, and are not to be looked upon as of private interpretation. What happened to the Old-Testament saint happened to them for ensample; and the scriptures of the Old Testament have many fulfillings. The scriptures are left for a standing rule to us: they are written, that they might remain for our use and benefit. First, For our learning. There are many things to be learned out of the scriptures; and that is the best learning which is drawn from these fountains. Those are the most learned that are most mighty in the scriptures. We must therefore labour, not only to understand the literal meaning of the scripture, but to learn out of it that which will do us good; and we have need of help therefore not only to roll away the stone, but to draw out the water, for in many places the well is deep. Practical observations are more necessary than critical expositions. Secondly, That we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. That hope which hath eternal life for its object is here proposed as the end of scripture-learning. The scripture was written that we might know what to hope for from God, and upon what grounds, and in what way. This should recommend the scripture to us that it is a special friend to Christian hope. Now the way of attaining this hope is through patience and comfort of the scripture. Patience and comfort suppose trouble and sorrow; such is the lot of the saints in this world; and, were it not so, we should have no occasion for patience and comfort. But both these befriend that hope which is the life of our souls. Patience works experience, and experience hope, which maketh not ashamed, ch. 5:3-5. The more patience we exercise under troubles the more hopefully we may look through our troubles; nothing more destructive to hope than impatience. And the comfort of the scriptures, that comfort which springs from the word of God (that is the surest and sweetest comfort) is likewise a great stay to hope, as it is an earnest in hand of the good hoped for. The Spirit, as a comforter, is the earnest of our inheritance.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, PC Study Bible Formatted Electronic Database Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All Rights reserved.)

Edited December 4, 2011 by pilgrim1938

[Invicta]

John, are you saying it is wrong for a christian to ride a motorcycle?

[John81]

John, are you saying it is wrong for a christian to ride a motorcycle?

No, not at all.

There are some who look at those wearing certain leather jackets that are often worn by bikers as being hoodlums, outlaws, trouble-makers, no good. It was the fact so many looked at anyone wearing such jackets, which caused them to put up a wall or put distance between me and them, that I cast aside my jacket preference for the sake of appearance for the sake of Christ.

[JerryNumbers]

I believe ( might should wait and let rick clarify) that the point of the pictures was that the statement about (and I am not wording it exactly the way it was) a mans hair should be above his ears was universally accepted until the 20th century is a false premise. Even if those men he pictured were in sin for the length of there hair, they prove the statement wrong. My pastor (Dad) says it is wrong to try to prove a truth by using a bible passage out of context. I believe the same is true about proving a truth with a lie (I am not saying John was lying, for I think he was simply not seeing the facts correctly, and made a incorrect statement, so I guess untrue statement would be more correct). And many here will dislike this statement, but I figure if we could see the way our Lord wore his hair while here on the earth it would not meet up to our strict interpratation of short!! I also do not believe he wore it as long as the pictures you see depict.

We know that Jesus followed what was written in the Bible, so it would have been short hair.
1 Corinthians 11:14

For long hair on a man is his shame.

Most people get their idea of Jesus' hair length by drawing of Jesus, drawing by people who never set their eyes on Jesus.

That does not mean you have to have a fresh hair cut every week or every other week. Edited December 5, 2011 by Jerry80871852

[HappyChristian]

John, you said it was both Christian and the lost who were making statements referring to certain churches as "dyke," etc. I've got to tell you that I think those Christians who are referring to another church as "dyke" because of the length of a woman's hair ought to be ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely nothing scriptural about that kind of talk. The Bible is very specific on the sin of the tongue - and it is a sin that forms within the heart of the user. That tells me that the Christians who refer to those churches as dyke have a heart problem. Remember Michal, David's wife? When David danced in the street at the return of the ark, the Bible says she looked out and DESPISED David in her heart. That is exactly what's going on when people who aren't even members of a church look at something and ASSUME they know what the problem is: they are despising that church and those people in their hearts. And that is, at the root, pride. Tell me - which does God condemn more vociferously: pride or (what someone believes to be) short hair on women? Easy answer...

As to the lost making that kind of statement - lost people say all kinds of things about churches. And if the church is doing anything for the Lord, they say even more!! To be honest, there shouldn't be a whole lot of credence given to lost people calling a church a "dyke" church - especially nowadays, when being a dyke is not something most lost people would condemn.

God does want us to look different from the world. There is no question about that. We are to behave differently from the world. There is no question about that. And we are to THINK differently from the world (gotta say: Christians calling a church "dyke" because of the length of a woman's hair ISN'T thinking differently...). But I still don't see scriptural injunction for us to sit in judgment as to whether the pastor's wife in a church where we aren't members has short hair or not. You say that the KY church decision is internal, and doesn't affect the public but the length of a pastor's wife's hair is public...Not so. They either both are or both aren't.

The decision that church made re:interracial marriage most certainly affects the public. They will not allow a couple who have different skin colors minister in certain areas. Where is that in scripture? It isn't. And you can bet that the one major goal of their decision is to keep away interracial couples. And it will work.

Don't get me wrong - I do think Christian women should wear their hair long enough to be able to ascertain that they are women. The churches are having problems with outreach? They may be...but I seriously don't believe it's because of the length of the women's hair....short hair on women is the fashion, and I don't believe the lost would be repulsed by it, since so many of them wear their hair short, buzzed, or even shaved. And, please, before anyone hops on the word - just because I said it's the fashion doesn't mean I agree with it.

(BTW - I just wanted to insert here that I do believe there is a way to know Jesus had short hair...along with scripture that it's a shame for men to have long hair, we can look at the busts of the men from that time period: they all had hair above their ears.)

[2Tim215]

I also have a question: If we are to live according to Johns interpretation of the particular scripture, can I grow my hair down to my shoulders as a man? Did men not have shoulder length hair in Paul's days? So how can we say that men must have short hair that is mans traditions and woman must have long hair according to "biblical" traditions Two faced coin here. I personally prefer long hair on a woman, but would not call one a sinner if her hair was short. Nor would I call a man one for having long hair.

[no name joe]

If long hair is always wrong for a man, then why is it that Nazarites vow to never cut their hair? John the Baptist had long hair, as did Samson. (Yes, Samson had his problems, but cutting his hair led to his downfall).

So, those to take a Nazerite vow to set themselves apart for God cannot cut their hair. Paul makes a statement against men and long hair. How do you reconcile these two things? The only way to reconcile the two is to recognize that Paul was addressing a particular cultural situation.

[JerryNumbers]

I also have a question: If we are to live according to Johns interpretation of the particular scripture, can I grow my hair down to my shoulders as a man? Did men not have shoulder length hair in Paul's days? So how can we say that men must have short hair that is mans traditions and woman must have long hair according to "biblical" traditions Two faced coin here. I personally prefer long hair on a woman, but would not call one a sinner if her hair was short. Nor would I call a man one for having long hair.

You seem to be saying, whatever your preference is, is right.

The Bible does say something about this, that is if your ready to accept the Bible as truth.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?