BEARDS letter from GB (page 4)

badwillie

Henry -
Let me help you then - no, they did not wear beards. Beards were not envogue at the time in Rome. However, many Gentile Christians who were clean shaven were used EXTENSIVELY for congregation responsibilities. Now, do you see the point?

LDH

So then Henry, how many Bethelites have beards?

Lisa

DIM

Henry -

You'd have to ask yourself WHY would modern day JW's be offended? WHY WHY WHY??? It is an acceptable look all over the world. If people are offended by it, THEY are the ones with the problem, as their taking offense is not sound or based upon the bible. Good points also, badwillie.

HenryP

I do see the point badwillie is making and you have something going in your argument. Could we possibly apply 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 to the discussion?

The scripture says :

“You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is helpful. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial. 24Don't think only of your own good. Think of other Christians and what is best for them.
25Here's what you should do. You may eat any meat that is sold in the marketplace. Don't ask whether or not it was offered to idols, and then your conscience won't be bothered. 26For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
27If someone who isn't a Christian asks you home for dinner, go ahead; accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you and don't ask any questions about it. Your conscience should not be bothered by this. 28But suppose someone warns you that this meat has been offered to an idol. Don't eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.
Now, why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it? 31Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, you must do all for the glory of God. 32Don't give offense to Jews or Gentiles or the church of God. 33That is the plan I follow, too. I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don't just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be saved. [New Living Translation]

crownboy

Henry P said:

Jesus had a beard because that was the custom in those days and it was acceptable by someone that served God full time. Would Jesus have a beard if he were on Earth today? Maybe, but Jesus was humble and would not do anything to stumble his brothers, especially something so minute as having a beard.

You're right. If Jesus were a JW today he would have to shave his beard so that he would "not stumble" his brothers. But why should his "brothers" be stumbled by his beard to begin with? Can you honestly say that any sane worldly person would look askance to a JW with a beard (in the US or Western Europe, were this policy is most popular)? According to the letter Witnesses shouldn't wear beards because it would stumble worldly people because it is against the local custom for respectable people to wear beards. We both know that's a load of crap. Even the society acknowleged that beards are non offensive in themselves. They only become an issue when the local elders take issue to it. And were do you think the elders get their ridiculous ideas from? The Society, of course. It's the society that is responsible for the stupid policy to begin with. What other reason would account for the totally irrational beard policy? The only time "worldy people" start hating beards is when they become JW's! I have a goatee, and while the body of elders in my congreation has no problem with it(they're fairly liberal), I have gotten negative comments about it from individual Witnesses, and from my uncle, who is an elder in another congreation and very "hard line". Yet, from "worldly people" I've gotten zero negative comments and many positive ones. Worldy people don't hate beards and Witnesses only hate them because the Society has made it that way.

You also said:

The letter is balanced in saying that if you want to grow a beard, fine. Now about the privileges, they leave it up to each individual body of elders, who know the friends in their own congregations better than the brothers in Bethel. I don't see anything wrong with that. Notice that the elders would not be involved in deciding for the individual, that decision is up to him. The elders would only be involved in analyzing if it would be appropriate for that individual to have privileges of service in the congregation.

Once again, why the hell is it even an issue to begin with if it isn't an issue in society at large? It's as illogical as taking away "privileges" for wearing a bow tie instead of a standard tie. And it's not really a choice if there's only one "right" chioce (i.e. no beard). The society basically says it's ok to discriminate against people with beards for no other reason than because of elders personal choices. That's totally unscriptural and unacceptable.

My personal view on the matter is that if the individual so desperately seeks privileges in the congregation to serve his fellow brothers and sisters, then he would not want to do anything that would cause them to stumble. He still has one of the biggest privileges, sharing in the ministry.

If the society came out with an article today saying that beards are acceptable, all stumbling blocks would automatically disappear. People in the congreation know they're only "stumbled" because the society perceives beards as evil. The society knows this, but the "no beard" policy serves two purposes. One is so the society can know how much control they have over a person, and thus their loyalty to the society. Any Witness with a beard has an "independent mind" and can be marked. That person will either be forced to get back into the "group think" mentality or be forced out. Either way, the society wins. The second reason is that it gives JW's a "special status". The fact that only the JW religion knows that "beards are evil" is yet another sign of God's approval, and thus a sign of rightousness. One who wears a beard is thus less rightous, and the non beard wearer is a better person.

As for the second part of your comment, we both know that's baloney. A JW man that's simply a regular publisher (which is what a beard wearer would probably have to settle for) is not viewed as having "the biggest priveldge" but as spiritually weak. "Why isn't brother X reaching out for more responsibility?" The ministry is simply the means for a "theocratic brother" to show his worth for other responsibilties. Elders an Ministerial Servants are easily viewed as "more spiritual" than one who simply shares in "the greatest work" regardless of whether or not the latter spends more time in this "great work" than the former ones. No matter how you look at it, the beard policy is totally unacceptable.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

RedhorseWoman

It's all a matter of control. Beard or no beard is not particularly relevant.

Common sense would say that a neatly trimmed beard should be perfectly acceptable, but a long unkempt beard ala ZZ Top would not be.

This falls into the same area as sisters' skirt lengths, which tend to be measured in millimeters. Common sense would be that a micro-mini is inappropriate, but a neat dressy skirt that comes slightly above the knee is fine.

All decisions are removed from the rank and file, and they are left at the mercy of micro-managing elders. The safest course is to toe the line, no matter how ridiculous.

Mister Biggs

Anyone should be allowed to wear beards!

HenryP

You make some good points, still you did not address the scripture that I quoted. 1 Cor. 10:33 "I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don't just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be saved. "

Did Paul have a valid point also?

freeborg

it just shows how pathetic the WTS are!!!!

LONG LIVE FACIAL HAIR

crownboy

I did address the issue. I said that the only reason that it is an issue is because the society has made it one. If they sent a Body of Elders letter stating that "one should not be dogmatic on matters of personal choice including beards, because it has come to our attention that certain brothers have lost privelges because of this choice" or something to that effect, along with an article in the Watchtower (probably under "Questions From Readers"), which gives the same advice to the general JW community, I guarantee not a single person would be stumbled. But the society dilberately chooses not to do so.

Not wearing a beard is not a scriptural issue, and real Christains should not be stumbled by such a thing. Where do we draw the line as far as appeasing our brothers on non scriptural issues? If a brother objects to you making a lot of money, I suppose he would be justified in taking away your priveleges? Well, he has just as must scriptural backing to do that ridiculous act as penalizing a bearded man. (Of course, if the Society said it's ok to do so that would be enough ).

If a brother is stumbled, the scriptures say that you should go to him and work it out. Of course, showing a brother that there is nothing wrong with wearing a beard scripturally would be pointless because organizationally it's wrong, so obviously this is one the organization has to handle (because Witnesses look to them for "truth").

I could also turn the question on you. Why should a person with an unscriptural hatred for beards force his brother to adopt his attitude. Shouldn't the beard hater be "trying to please everyone" and respect the brother's God given right of free choice? Couldn't he stumble his bearded brother with his irrational, unscriptural and unneccessary prejudice? If Witnesses truly used their minds, it would not be an issue.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

BEARDS letter from GB

Share this