Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon  Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon
Really? That's "our" culture?
I don't buy it. Actually, I have a tough time buying any sort of argument that claims that we live in some sort of singular culture. The fact is, culture is splintered along all sorts of lines -- generational, geographic, racial, gender, political, affinity, and the list can go on and on. Now, of course, Christ reigns over all cultures, and scriptural commands and mandates apply to all cultures at all times, but . . . I have a really tough time believing that whether or not a man "should" wear earrings if he wishes is one of them.
Also, the idea that earrings are necessarily "women's jewelry" doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying denim jeans are necessarily "men's pants". There are certainly some earrings that are designed for women, but there are others designed for men.
| Really? Show me a consensus or practice among any major social class or ethnic group in America before the post-WWII era that would have accepted men's earrings.
I think you are reading too much cheap revisionist history of the kind they push in modern university studies now that loves to revel in a the supposed diversity and pluriformity of culture/sexual orientation/etc in reconstructing historic circumstances and events. I remember taking a class on 19th century Western America whose main thesis was that prostitutes (that class of women who are "woefully under appreciated and under represented in our history books") were nearly the sole reason that the "West was Won". Just because one may have been born or raised in a modern American city where the culture has fragmented, and in many cases degenerated, does not mean that things have always been that way for large portions of the population, revisionist history aside.
If you want to talk about "your" culture, could you really say that your forebears going multiple generations back would have accepted the wearing of what was commonly understood to be women's jewelry by the men of their day? I really doubt you could substantiate that.
To be honest, I would most likely not give a positive vote at presbytery for a potential minister or ruling elder who wore earrings, because I believe that such dress represents a personal vanity, and a lack of sober-mindedness and respectability which is required by the Apostle Paul in emplacing elders among the congregation. Feel free to disagree, but these things are important in the representation of the church to the world, according to apostolic command, and no amount of post modern/emergent church/cultural relativism will change that. | Wow. I guess it's a good thing that God knew who and who not to put on the examining commission when He called me to the office of Elder!  I find it interesting that, substituting a few words in that last paragraph, you've used a very similar argument to those who'd say that they'd never vote for an elder who used alcohol. VERY similar. But I don't know; maybe you feel the same way about alcohol.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that we're going to disagree fundamentally on a few things, but I just want to make sure we're actually addressing what the other is saying instead of "arguing around" eachother. You've been a Christian for almost as long as I've been alive, so I definitely appreciate your wisdom and education. Still, it seems to me that we're talking about different things when we talk about "culture". For instance, I'm having a tough time understanding where the pre-WWII era even figures in this discussion. Sure, it's interesting from an historical perspective, but we're talking about the propriety of earrings on men in 2008, in "our culture". All I'm saying is that the minute one says "our culture" in a discussion like this, anything after that point is useless without an agreed-upon definition of what "our culture" is. For instance, there's a huge difference in the culture that my church largely ministers to (urban, younger, bohemian, artistic, highly educated) and the culture that our sister PCA church fifteen miles away ministers to (suburban, older, more "working class", but also educated). We have a common bond in Christ and in the reformed faith, but the cultures of our churches are not the same. I'm not about to tell their elders that their khakis and polos or suits and ties are inappropriate (unless in jest). Neither should they tell ours that our jeans, goatees, Converse sneakers, or earrings are.
[I'm honestly a bit baffled that this is being argued as an issue of "morality" (unless, of course, we're going the "everything is an issue of morality" route).] |
Hello Rae,
I haven't read the rest of this thread since our posts earlier last week, and I will not probably do so, as the few that I glanced at did not seem to be very profitable. I did however want to address your statement made regarding this argument.
The use of alcohol (which I am not against), and the wearing of earrings are two completely separate arguments. One is something that is consumed, and regarding which there are both positive statements made, as well as warnings regarding its use, given in scripture. The other is mentioned only as a very peripheral issue, and that being largely descriptive, in the pages of Scripture, but their propriety in our culture may be inferred by deduction regarding moral issues in general.
When a man wears earrings in our culture it is a practice that is engaged in either to beautify oneself (which should be the exclusive domain of women) or to draw attention to one's level of "cool" (thus placing other's focus unduly upon us), or to make a statement of rebellion against the establishment/disregard of conformity/etc. (obviously in disregard to the 5th commandment) None of those things should be part of a mature Christian man's life, especially a man seeking the office of elder. Elders are to represent the Church to the world, and are in doing so to show the aforementioned respectability and sober-mindedness. I would think it a stretch to argue that the wearing of earrings enhances either one's respectability or appearance of sober-mindedness. It certainly is more conducive to one's showing off his appearance, rather than his showing forth of Christ, which should be the goal of a mature Christian man.
Even if we do not want to label it a clear and positive sin, I would have no problem in calling it a mark of immaturity and a lack of discretion. I would be bothered if I came into a church where the men who were supposed to be most advanced in the Christian life were standing before the congregation with earrings. I would also then have to take the time to explain to my children why the church was unwise/undiscerning in electing a man to the leadership of the congregation who not only engaged in the practice of wearing earrings, but also sought to defend it. I have no problem as a Christian father letting my girls know that they will never be allowed to date a man with earrings, and/or body piercings, and that until he saw fit to make a permanent removal of those items, they might as well look else where. I do this not because of an outward legalism, but because it says something to me of a man's character and level of thinking.
The above is not limited to earrings alone. Men who spike/bleach their hair, wear "loud" clothing, or do anything of that nature, although they may be sincere as babes in Christ, are not of the level of maturity and discretion to be in the eldership. These are all practices understood through observation and experience to be "statement making" habits of dress.
Drinking alcohol, to return to that issue, would also be condemnable in a man if his drinking habits caused him to appear as one who was unwise or immature in his lifestyle. However, drinking alcohol can be done in a wise and moderate manner, whereas the wearing of earrings on men, by definition, is never a moderate practice, but always one designed to draw attention for one reason or another.
It is also a guess to say that "God knew what he was doing when the presbyters called me into the eldership". Churches can make poor decisions, and the PCA is certainly not exempt from this. It's like arguing (and please don't take this wrong, as if I am putting your election to serve on this same level) that "God must have known what he was doing when he put Joel Osteen/Joyce Meyers/Kenneth Copeland/et al into the ministry". Just because one is there does not necessarily display divine approval in any or all areas.
I believe that you are a sincere brother, and one with worthy desires. Please do not take the above comments as a personal attack, as they are convictions that I would apply across the board, and not just against your personal practice. But I would also ask you to rethink your practice, and what it may say to others in the body, and especially to those youths who may look to you as an excuse to engage in defiant behavior toward their parents.
Grace and peace be with you in your labors.