To beard or not to beard

[Ken]

Sure, some people wore mustaches. But by far most troops were clean shaven by WW1 and still are. Those today who are not tend to be special forces types who wear full beards. The point I am making is that the conservative Anabaptist prohibition on mustaches because they are "military" or a "soldier's fashion" is really a reaction to the 19th Century when mustaches actually were military fashion and some forces like the British actually mandated them. But that notion is really 150 years out of date. In other words, they are reacting to Civil War and Franco-Prussian war fashions, not anything in the living memory of even our grandparents.

In fact, much of the traditional Anabaptist aversion to mustaches (where it has existed) seems to perhaps even a century or two farther back to the various European militaries and mercenaries, if we're talking about cultural memory. I have a couple books at home that offer some interesting historical documentation on these.

Just a couple thoughts while I'm here. I realize you (Ken) rather clearly expressed your opinion regarding the irrelevance of the beard/mustache question earlier, and certainly everybody is entitled to their opinion. Having said that, referring to the practice / treatment of said subject by groups such as MCUSA and CMC seems somewhat irrelevant as well considering their multi-decade shift away from much of traditional (and yes, cultural) Anabaptism which continues to place value on a large variety of practical applications, including questions like beards and mustaches which relate specifically to appearance.

I'm certainly not suggesting you should leave the discussion or anything; it just seems worthwhile to recognize that such a dismissal or downplaying of value on the subject seems awfully irrelevant coming from the former... But I might be all wet on that, and I'd be interested in hearing why you feel that complete disconnect (by anabaptist groups moving in a more progressive direction) is justified, and (by logical continuance) why you would encourage others to share that same position of dismissal on the subject of whether there is value in encouraging Christian men to wear beards and consider aspects like the mustache and its potential connection with or against less desirable aspects in the broader culture... Admittedly I ask that as one who, while having little patience for the political wranglings and legalism that have often accompanied the beard question, still finds tremendous value in the practice of Christian men accepting and wearing the beard, both from a Scriptural and a /cultural/historical standpoint.

I grew up hearing my Mennonite mother saying that we don't wear mustaches because they are militaristic and I heard the same thing from my grandparents. It was ingrained cultural memory I suppose. Not that I ever really wanted to grow one, but my brother fought with her about it. I eventually said "wait a second....really? This is what you are fighting about?" Rule are all fine and good. But they also become sources of conflict.

[steve-in-kville]

I grew up hearing my Mennonite mother saying that we don't wear mustaches because they are militaristic and I heard the same thing from my grandparents. It was ingrained cultural memory I suppose. Not that I ever really wanted to grow one, but my brother fought with her about it. I eventually said "wait a second....really? This is what you are fighting about?"

Stuff like this reminds me of the "why do mennonites drive black cars" discussion. Decades ago the reasoning made sense. Now I think its dated and doesn't apply. Just my lovely opinion, as always.

[Heirbyadoption]

I grew up hearing my Mennonite mother saying that we don't wear mustaches because they are militaristic and I heard the same thing from my grandparents. It was ingrained cultural memory I suppose. Not that I ever really wanted to grow one, but my brother fought with her about it. I eventually said "wait a second....really? This is what you are fighting about?"

Thanks for sharing. Growing up Brethren, the justification I always heard was similar, along with the objection that they were just downright "worldly"... We never had much conflict over them, as beards weren't an outright requirement except for the ministers and deacons (another can of worms, yes), only strongly encouraged.

[Heirbyadoption]

Stuff like this reminds me of the "why do mennonites drive black cars" discussion. Decades ago the reasoning made sense. Now I think its dated and doesn't apply. Just my lovely opinion, as always.

Thank you for the chuckle. Just speaking from a pro-beard position, the difference between the beard subject and applications like black cars, hook & eyes, no electricity, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum is that the beard has explicit reference and strong implicit support throughout Scripture, whereas the myriad and minutae of things Plain folks squabble over have often been wholly and solely applications of principle in reaction to some current social or cultural aspect around them... I say that while still appreciation the original hearts and concerns behind many of those applications, but yes, many of them grow dated very, very quickly.

[steve-in-kville]

We never had much conflict over them, as beards weren't an outright requirement except for the ministers and deacons (another can of worms, yes), only strongly encouraged.

Open it! Open it!

Seriously, was that requirement enforced? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even in the Dunkard church, it really wasn't.

[steve-in-kville]

Stuff like this reminds me of the "why do mennonites drive black cars" discussion. Decades ago the reasoning made sense. Now I think its dated and doesn't apply. Just my lovely opinion, as always.

Thank you for the chuckle. Just speaking from a pro-beard position, the difference between the beard subject and applications like black cars, hook & eyes, no electricity, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum is that the beard has explicit reference and strong implicit support throughout Scripture, whereas the myriad and minutae of things Plain folks squabble over have often been wholly and solely applications of principle in reaction to some current social or cultural aspect around them... I say that while still appreciation the original hearts and concerns behind many of those applications, but yes, many of them grow dated very, very quickly.

Another one is prohibiting the attendance at farm shows and tractor pulls. Today, go to our local tractor pulls and the stands are a sea of button up shirts and white head coverings

[Heirbyadoption]

Seriously, was that requirement enforced? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even in the Dunkard church, it really wasn't.

Beards being required for the officials but not the laity? Yes, it was. This was OGBB, bear in mind, not you progressive Dunkard folks. There was never the slightest suggestion of an opt out, so woe to the chap who struggled with facial hirsuity. Being part of the OGBB New Conference, there are a few ministers or deacons who have trimmed up the three or four hairs growing on their baby faced cheeks and let the chin grow alone, but not many. None have yet bucked the beard expectation. There are a growing number with mustaches as well - it was discouraged a couple years ago for the sake of respecting tradition, but it is no longer legally verboten.

Farm shows and tractor pulls were a bit in the grey area, but usually lumped with fairs and other forms of "worldly amusements". That has slackened tremendously in my lifetime, though, at least on the farm shows. Tractor pulls still bring some hesitance, but most groups forbear.

[Heirbyadoption]

Steve - I know I posted this on another thread a couple years ago, but maybe it would be worth sharing here again, if only to explain (and perhaps help make a little sense to those scratching their heads) as to why some of us are strongly pro-beard. The following is a Google Drive link to a draft of a booklet I was asked to share awhile back after I dared to suggest that Christian men wearing beards had not only historical and cultural support, but Scriptural support as well. It's a draft of perhaps 20-25 pages, not overly long.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xcW ... ue&sd=true

Having said that, and in spite of my own studies and resultant convictions on the subject, I would refer back to the initial question behind the OP and recognize that the definition of a "salvation issue" does not ultimately lie in the practical application of an issue, but where the heart and motivation is before God. Do I think the Scriptures support and encourage men to wear beards? Absolutely! I think it can be clearly shown. Do I think I can determine that someone is automatically outside the will of God if they don't let their beard grow? I honestly don't believe that the presence or lack of a beard provides a simple litmus test for whether someone is walking in the will of God. I do believe there is far more support for the practice than silence allowing its dismissal, and that it offers a valuable testimony for a day with so much gender and role confusion, but I don't see Scriptural support to make it a membership requirement per se, such as might be done with something like the practice of headship coverings.

[steve-in-kville]

My MIL had a saying that how a person dresses is a reflection of their heart. Basically she followed the mindset of "more conservative, more saved" which at one time I thought as well. Again, we can pivot back to the head covering rabbit trail.

We just may have to do another head covering thread, don't want to take this thread off track.

[ABC 123]

My MIL had a saying that how a person dresses is a reflection of their heart. Basically she followed the mindset of "more conservative, more saved" which at one time I thought as well. Again, we can pivot back to the head covering rabbit trail.

We just may have to do another head covering thread, don't want to take this thread off track.

I have heard that too.

Growing up how we dressed was reflective of what came in the bags of clothes other people gave to us.