# Earrings on Men



## bookslover

Once it became culturally OK for men to wear earrings (well, at least in California!), I've been astounded at how many older men - guys in their 60s and 70s - started wearing them.

It's almost as if they've secretly waited their whole lives to be able to wear earrings.

Strange...


----------



## raekwon

I wear 'em, but I'm not in my 60s or 70s.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Bookslover,
Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I had four at this time. (2002) I still have the holes but I don't wear them any longer. I outgrew the desire to wear them. I rather like getting older and looking and acting my age.


----------



## bookslover

21st Century Calvinist said:


> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.



No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...


----------



## Archlute

bookslover said:


> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
Click to expand...


Amen to that.


----------



## raekwon

bookslover said:


> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
Click to expand...


Which culture is that?


----------



## Archlute

raekwon said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which culture is that?
Click to expand...


The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.


----------



## Vonnie Dee

I won't say that it is wrong for men to wear earrings. However, the men in my life don't and I like it that way. I know some very manly men that wear earrings (pirates, Mr. Clean). However, I solidified my opinion on this when I was in the doctor's office. There was a child with long braided hair and earrings named Chris. I remarked that Chris was a pretty girl, much to his mother's dismay.  I don't mean to  of long hair on men, but long braided hair, earrings, and Chris? I felt like I had met a child's version of Pat from SNL.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

having an earing violates no biblical standards...let's all get'em


----------



## blhowes

I don't think guys wearing earings is a new thing. I'm 50, and I can remember two guys in high school who wore earings. Times must have been tough back then, 'cause each could only afford one earing. As I recall, both wore their earings on the left ear. Not sure why, maybe they were both right handed and it was easier to get it on that ear.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

As long as they carry a matching purse it's ok.


----------



## blhowes

Blueridge Baptist said:


> As long as they carry a matching purse it's ok.


I agree. There's nothing worse than a guy wearing earings when their purse doesn't match. A bit tacky, if you ask me.


----------



## blhowes

It use to be a good argument that only sissies wore earings. Then, Michael Jordan and others like him started wearing them, so that blows that argument right out of the water!!!

<wondering>
So, if Michael started wearing high heels, does that mean its ok to...
</wondering>


----------



## Ivan

To those who wear earrings...well, that's their business. But this Bubba don't wear no earrrings. 

Never did, never will.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Blueridge Baptist said:


> As long as they carry a matching purse it's ok.



Its not a purse, it is a carry all.

I put holes in my ears to be a 'rebel'.. And once I met my wife, I pretty much doubled my inventory!!!!


----------



## KMK

blhowes said:


> It use to be a good argument that only sissies wore earings. Then, Michael Jordan and others like him started wearing them, so that blows that argument right out of the water!!!
> 
> <wondering>
> So, if Michael started wearing high heels, does that mean its ok to...
> </wondering>



Yeah...

That would be OK too.

Because, let's face it. MJ has more 'manliness' in his little pinky toe than any of us have in our entire bodies.


----------



## Ivan

KMK said:


> Because, let's face it. MJ has more 'manliness' in his little pinky toe than any of us have in our entire bodies.



Not really. Take a closer look at his life, you may come up with a different conclusion.


----------



## Amazing Grace

I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?


----------



## blhowes

Amazing Grace said:


> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?


I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?


----------



## DMcFadden

Amazing Grace said:


> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?



Gay ear? Is that part of the same rule as the one about rainbow avatars? 

I always was too stuffy to do it myself. When one of my sons got them, I went a little postal (he had those big "plugs" for a time, the kind that look deformative). Now this son wears more modest sized earrings and it is fine with me. My other boys (the pastor and the lawyer) show no interest in ear decorations.


----------



## Stephen

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I had four at this time. (2002) I still have the holes but I don't wear them any longer. I outgrew the desire to wear them. I rather like getting older and looking and acting my age.



Great picture, Randy. Did you have tatooes to go with the earrings?


----------



## Stephen

Amazing Grace said:


> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?



Remember the line, left is right and right is wrong.


----------



## Stephen

blhowes said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I did not see your response to Amazing Grace. If you are going to wear an earring, never wear it in the right ear.


----------



## blhowes

Stephen said:


> Sorry, I did not see your response to Amazing Grace. If you are going to wear an earring, never wear it in the right ear.



<oops>
...switching ears...
</oops>


----------



## Stephen

Amazing Grace said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they carry a matching purse it's ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a purse, it is a carry all.
> 
> I put holes in my ears to be a 'rebel'.. And once I met my wife, I pretty much doubled my inventory!!!!
Click to expand...


Yes, thank you. Men have more junk to carry then women; cell phones, ipods, etc. It is fashionable for men in Europe to carry a carry all. I am sure men in Great Britian are carrying them, right Daniel Ritchie?


----------



## Galatians220

blhowes said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
Click to expand...

 
Around here, it's "de rigueur" for a homosexual to wear an earring - if any - in the right ear only. Straight men, if they wear an earring (or two) wear them in the left ear only or in both ears. However, _contra_ the whole concept, there's Deuteronomy 22:5 to consider. Of course, women don't usually wear only one earring... _Want to make a lady panic?_ Tell her she's got only one earring on... Especially if that one is a real pearl...   (It's happened to me.)

I personally don't like to see earrings on men and I wouldn't find a man attractive who wore one - or two. But then, what do I know?  And I've been married, practically, since they all disembarked at Ararat anyway... 

Margaret


----------



## py3ak

To me it seems that the question is not so much is this or that specific decoration appropriate but rather: why are men so concerned about their appearance? Obviously hygiene is important, but I have to admit I think it's rather strange when men will spend a long time getting their look right --especially when they work very hard to achieve a look of cool indifference. 

Now I say this as a bearded individual (though that saves time) who only wears black pants, socks, and shoes and whose shirts are almost invariably gray, so I do have a _look_ of my own. But it is a tremendously easy look to maintain.


----------



## raekwon

Archlute said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which culture is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Archlute said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which culture is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
Click to expand...


Take a look at some Renaissance era paintings and tell us if you still think earrings on men is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I don't wear earrings, but don't think there's anything good or bad about men wearing them...


----------



## Stephen

Galatians220 said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Around here, it's "de rigueur" for a homosexual to wear an earring - if any - in the right ear only. Straight men, if they wear an earring (or two) wear them in the left ear only or in both ears. However, _contra_ the whole concept, there's Deuteronomy 22:5 to consider. Of course, women don't usually wear only one earring... _Want to make a lady panic?_ Tell her she's got only one earring on... Especially if that one is a real pearl...   (It's happened to me.)
> 
> I personally don't like to see earrings on men and I wouldn't find a man attractive who wore one - or two. But then, what do I know?  And I've been married, practically, since they all disembarked at Ararat anyway...
> 
> Margaret
Click to expand...


My wife would agree with you. I do not like them either and if I wore one, my wife would probably remove it with some force,


----------



## Amazing Grace

Stephen said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not see your response to Amazing Grace. If you are going to wear an earring, never wear it in the right ear.
Click to expand...


Well i ahve holes in both, so does that make me a metrosexual or something? Or just stupid!!!!


----------



## Archlute

raekwon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which culture is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Archlute

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which culture is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at some Renaissance era paintings and tell us if you still think earrings on men is a relatively recent phenomenon.
> 
> I don't wear earrings, but don't think there's anything good or bad about men wearing them...
Click to expand...


In my days as an art student and a music major I have viewed plenty of Renaissance and Baroque era paintings and have not noticed the practice. However, I was speaking of American times where at least some influence of Christian/Puritan ideals were still influential. Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct? 

P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I rather like getting older and looking and *acting my age*.



Say it isn't so! 

Where's the fun in that?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Archlute said:


> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?



No, just the greatest English writer of all time...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Archlute said:


> Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct?



Fair enough. So point to me where these indicate it is wrong for a man to wear an earring.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Sydnorphyn said:


> having an earing violates no biblical standards...let's all get'em




 No thanks!

Others may. I WILL NOT!

I got enough holes in my head!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the greatest English writer of all time...
Click to expand...


Are you sure this pic is not photoshopped?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Stephen said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, what was the Gay ear? If a man wore a ring in what ear?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not see your response to Amazing Grace. If you are going to wear an earring, never wear it in the right ear.
Click to expand...



I thought it was, if you're going to wear an earring, make sure you're a female.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Are you sure this pic is not photoshopped?



Yep, unless the National Portrait Gallery photoshops their paintings...

NPG 1; William Shakespeare


----------



## Davidius

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So point to me where these indicate it is wrong for a man to wear an earring.
Click to expand...


I, too, agree that we should look for deeper principles that transcend culture, but I don't see how we can deduce from the Decalogue that men shouldn't wear earrings. I used to wear them but stopped because of personal aesthetic preference. This obviously cannot, however, equate to a general proscription, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

I remember my brother coming home one day, at 14 or 15, with an earring in one ear. My dad ignored my brother, turned to me and said "you know Eric there are two types of men who wear earrings, pirates and homosexuals, and you don't see too many pirates around any more." My brother turned on his heals and walked out of the room. We never did see that earring again. 

In all seriousness though, earrings aren't my thing, but since there is nothing unbiblical about them their use should be a matter of personal taste and liberty.


----------



## Davidius

ericfromcowtown said:


> I remember my brother coming home one day, at 14 or 15, with an earring in one ear. My dad ignored my brother, turned to me and said "you know Eric there are two types of men who wear earrings, pirates and homosexuals, and you don't see too many pirates around any more." My brother turned on his heals and walked out of the room. We never did see that earring again.


----------



## raekwon

Archlute said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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).]


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

ericfromcowtown said:


> I remember my brother coming home one day, at 14 or 15, with an earring in one ear. My dad ignored my brother, turned to me and said "you know Eric there are two types of men who wear earrings, pirates and homosexuals, and you don't see too many pirates around any more." My brother turned on his heals and walked out of the room. We never did see that earring again.



My cousin showed up at Sunday dinner one time with an earring. My grandfather said, "Let me get a closer look at that earring, Greg." My cousin leaned in for Papaw to get a better look. My grandfather grabbed the earring and yanked it out of his ear and said, "No grandson of mine will wear women's jewelry." Greg has never worn one since, and no other male in our family ever showed up with one until after my grandfather passed away.


----------



## Zenas

Archlute said:


> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.



As opposed to the one where it was acceptable to wear women's jewlry in private?


----------



## Theogenes

The only men that should be wearing ear rings are PIRATES.....arrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## Amazing Grace

Archlute said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture which prevailed before relatively recent times when it then became marginally acceptable for men to wear women's jewelry in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at some Renaissance era paintings and tell us if you still think earrings on men is a relatively recent phenomenon.
> 
> I don't wear earrings, but don't think there's anything good or bad about men wearing them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my days as an art student and a music major I have viewed plenty of Renaissance and Baroque era paintings and have not noticed the practice. However, I was speaking of American times where at least some influence of Christian/Puritan ideals were still influential. Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct?
> 
> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?
Click to expand...




Adam, does this suffice?

Ex 32:2-4

Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, *your sons* and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.


Ezekiel 16:12-AV And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.


We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

*Earing is a fake!*



Southern Presbyterian said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the greatest English writer of all time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure this pic is not photoshopped?
Click to expand...

The earing was added later, look 
here


> Studies indicate that the beard and hair in the portrait were lengthened by later painters and the earring was not part of the original painting.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> The earing was added later, look
> here
> 
> 
> 
> Studies indicate that the beard and hair in the portrait were lengthened by later painters and the earring was not part of the original painting.
Click to expand...


You forgot to quote this section as well...

"In 2006, Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of the purported Shakespeare portraits and concluded that the Chandos portrait was the most likely to be a representation of Shakespeare. *Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of a poet*."


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Amazing Grace said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at some Renaissance era paintings and tell us if you still think earrings on men is a relatively recent phenomenon.
> 
> I don't wear earrings, but don't think there's anything good or bad about men wearing them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my days as an art student and a music major I have viewed plenty of Renaissance and Baroque era paintings and have not noticed the practice. However, I was speaking of American times where at least some influence of Christian/Puritan ideals were still influential. Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct?
> 
> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, does this suffice?
> 
> Ex 32:2-4
> 
> Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, *your sons* and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.
> 
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12-AV And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
> 
> And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
> 
> And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.
> 
> 
> We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.
Click to expand...


Ex 32:2-4 In this text the Israelites had just departed from Egypt, the mosaic law had not been given. Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people.

Ezekiel 16:12 It would be a stretch to use this as a proof text for piercings for men given the overall context given.

Make your case from Ex. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, I have seen those who have pieced their ears as a mark of being wholly givin to Christ's service.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earing was added later, look
> here
> 
> 
> 
> Studies indicate that the beard and hair in the portrait were lengthened by later painters and the earring was not part of the original painting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to quote this section as well...
> 
> "In 2006, Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of the purported Shakespeare portraits and concluded that the Chandos portrait was the most likely to be a representation of Shakespeare. *Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of a poet*."
Click to expand...


You forgot to quote this section as well, *



However, she acknowledges that the painting's authenticity cannot be proven.[3]

Click to expand...

*


----------



## DMcFadden

Doesn't that just mean that the authenticity of the painting as being the Bard cannot be proven but the dress and earring seem characteristic of a poet of that era? And, if so, isn't that the point?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

DMcFadden said:


> Doesn't that just mean that the authenticity of the painting as being the Bard cannot be proven but the dress and earring seem characteristic of a poet of that era? And, if so, isn't that the point?



Exactly.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

I found this thread helpful, it also answers the question  If he still holds the same view.

I personally do not care what people think of my style, so I am not overly critical of others. I try to be modest and orderly in my dress and try to ask the same of others. I try to focus on my own logs, most of the time. Yet, I still find myself picking at the specks of others before I deal with my logs, all too often.

I must admit that outward appearance does play a role in how I judge one's character upon first acquaintance. You can tell a lot about a person by how they style their self. Most stereotypes are the rule, and exceptions do come along from time to time, but not often.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my days as an art student and a music major I have viewed plenty of Renaissance and Baroque era paintings and have not noticed the practice. However, I was speaking of American times where at least some influence of Christian/Puritan ideals were still influential. Which brings us to a broader discussion of cultural normativity in morality. Do we set our moral standards by cultural consensus, as seems to be argued here, or do we look for deeper principles that transcend the culture, such as those found in the various applications of the Decalogue in the Larger Catechism, inference from apostolic injunctions, and the careful writings of Puritan casuistry? We are still known here as the "Puritan Board", correct?
> 
> P.S. Were you looking at paintings of Ishmaelites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, does this suffice?
> 
> Ex 32:2-4
> 
> Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, *your sons* and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.
> 
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12-AV And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
> 
> And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
> 
> And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.
> 
> 
> We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ex 32:2-4 In this text the Israelites had just departed from Egypt, the mosaic law had not been given. Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people.
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12 It would be a stretch to use this as a proof text for piercings for men given the overall context given.
> 
> Make your case from Ex. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, I have seen those who have pieced their ears as a mark of being wholly givin to Christ's service.
Click to expand...




Its not up to me or anyone to dissect the verses provided to be dogmatic on the issue. Men had piercings and was not determined unlawful. Therefore it is not a stretch to denounce them as sinful or immoral by any means. The stiff neckedness idolatry is not at all connected to jewelry or dress. Perhaps ill have to have my wife take back all of her pants!!!


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, does this suffice?
> 
> Ex 32:2-4
> 
> Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, *your sons* and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.
> 
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12-AV And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
> 
> And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
> 
> And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.
> 
> 
> We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex 32:2-4 In this text the Israelites had just departed from Egypt, the mosaic law had not been given. Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people.
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12 It would be a stretch to use this as a proof text for piercings for men given the overall context given.
> 
> Make your case from Ex. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, I have seen those who have pieced their ears as a mark of being wholly givin to Christ's service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not up to me or anyone to dissect the verses provided to be dogmatic on the issue. Men had piercings and was not determined unlawful. Therefore *it is not *a stretch to denounce them as sinful or immoral by any means. The stiff neckedness idolatry is not at all connected to jewelry or dress. Perhaps ill have to have my wife take back all of her pants!!!
Click to expand...


I think you meant, is it not, right? 

What I am trying to say is the same as you, I think. It is a stretch to make a dogmatic case for either side based on the texts given. There are better texts to make one's case with in my opinion.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ex 32:2-4 In this text the Israelites had just departed from Egypt, the mosaic law had not been given. Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people.
> 
> Ezekiel 16:12 It would be a stretch to use this as a proof text for piercings for men given the overall context given.
> 
> Make your case from Ex. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, I have seen those who have pieced their ears as a mark of being wholly givin to Christ's service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not up to me or anyone to dissect the verses provided to be dogmatic on the issue. Men had piercings and was not determined unlawful. Therefore *it is not *a stretch to denounce them as sinful or immoral by any means. The stiff neckedness idolatry is not at all connected to jewelry or dress. Perhaps ill have to have my wife take back all of her pants!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant, is it not, right?
> 
> What I am trying to say is the same as you, I think. It is a stretch to make a dogmatic case for either side based on the texts given. There are better texts to make one's case with in my opinion.
Click to expand...




I forget what I am trying to say!!!

My only point is that there is biblical record of men piercing their ears. Oh, and maybe another small point, if anyone is saying it is immoral and sinful, then telling them they are wrong!!!


----------



## Reepicheep

Earrings are fine, but it's the "soul patch" that is truly Puritan...try to count all the soul patches in the great portrait of the divines! Richard Baxter had a sweet soul patch for sure.


----------



## DMcFadden

Reepicheep said:


> Earrings are fine, but it's the "soul patch" that is truly Puritan...try to count all the soul patches in the great portrait of the divines! Richard Baxter had a sweet soul patch for sure.



Didn't I read something recently about a "soul patch" and "girly men"???


----------



## raekwon

Reepicheep said:


> Earrings are fine, but it's the "soul patch" that is truly Puritan...try to count all the soul patches in the great portrait of the divines! Richard Baxter had a sweet soul patch for sure.



A true external sign of holiness, if there ever was one.


----------



## VictorBravo

DMcFadden said:


> Reepicheep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earrings are fine, but it's the "soul patch" that is truly Puritan...try to count all the soul patches in the great portrait of the divines! Richard Baxter had a sweet soul patch for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't I read something recently about a "soul patch" and "girly men"???
Click to expand...


Man, these culture references keep sending me to Google. I just don't get out much, I guess. I thought a Puritan soul patch might have some connection to Dr. Owen being refered to as a physician of the soul--some sort of bandaid. 

BTW, I found a picture of me from about 20 years ago. I had forgotten how much I used to obsess about fashion:


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

raekwon said:


> Reepicheep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earrings are fine, but it's the "soul patch" that is truly Puritan...try to count all the soul patches in the great portrait of the divines! Richard Baxter had a sweet soul patch for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true external sign of holiness, if there ever was one.
Click to expand...


As a soul patched man I am humbled that you esteemed officers of the church think so.


----------



## k.seymore

I love the texts from the Exodus... guys giving up earrings in scripture is equated with idolatry! All you non-earringed guys are idolaters! Oh wait, that includes me [piercing my ears right now with the sharp end of a compass that was sitting on my desk].


----------



## bookslover

And, *even worse* than earrings - that silver nose piercing thingee that makes it look like you've got silver snot dripping out of your nose.

What is wrong with these people?


----------



## Gesetveemet

in my opinion men should give earrings not wear them.
Also
I know a man that has eight earrings in one ear and when he is not wearing them he uses his ear to strain spaghetti.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

blhowes said:


> It use to be a good argument that only sissies wore earings. Then, Michael Jordan and others like him started wearing them, so that blows that argument right out of the water!!!
> 
> <wondering>
> So, if Michael started wearing high heels, does that mean its ok to...
> 
> </wondering>


 Ask Dennis Rodman. I don't think so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had four at this time. (2002) I still have the holes but I don't wear them any longer. I outgrew the desire to wear them. I rather like getting older and looking and acting my age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great picture, Randy. Did you have tatooes to go with the earrings?
Click to expand...


No Tatoos. I thought the Bible forbid them along with cutting ones self for the dead.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Southern Presbyterian said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rather like getting older and looking and *acting my age*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say it isn't so!
> 
> Where's the fun in that?
Click to expand...


When was the last time you saw a pic of R. L. Dabney or B. H. Carroll? Old age and long beards just look so awesome. Who needs earrings? Gray hair and long beards is where it is at.


----------



## Reepicheep

Locke Peterseim of ESPN said it well regarding soul patches:

_*The soul patch is the "I meant to do that" of facial hair. Unlike a Grizzly Adams/Ted Kaczynski full-on beard, the soul patch doesn't require a lot of scratching or checking for ticks. And unlike geometrically correct goatees, it doesn't say, "I'm on Satan's team." Instead, a soul patch says things like, "I'm cool" or "I'm a little rebellious" or "I'm sensitive" or "I'm a little hung up on myself" or "I can grow hair right there on that spot right below my lip, and some of my friends can't."*_


----------



## BobVigneault

Do they have to be pierced earrings? I love to rummage through mother's clip ons and wear some of hers when I just want to feel pretty. I'm so grateful that America got feminized. I can cry, wear a shoulder bag, make up, clip ons, gold chains and evening gowns.


Ok, of course I was joking. I don't wear clip ons.


----------



## Sonoftheday

Never have nor ever will have an earring. However in time of depression during my teen years I pierced my own nipple, still have a scar to prove it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

victorbravo said:


> *BTW, I found a picture of me from about 20 years ago.  I had forgotten how much I used to obsess about fashion:
> *



 Now that was funny!


----------



## Reepicheep

Guess which one is Richard Baxter and which one is me...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Paul recommend we see what Uncle Bawb thought so I went to check it out. 

I thought it was stated in a goodly way. 

Btw Bawb, I know you really don't do the clip on thing but what is your favorite colored purse. And is it more of a hand bag or what? 



BobVigneault said:


> "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
> 
> I believe the argument against tatoos is an intrinsic argument from the many verses condemning the worship of the creature and boastful pride. Getting a tatoo is a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I'm tough, I'm cool." It is an encouragement to glory in the flesh and not in the Lord.
> 
> Furthermore, they have long been associated with the rebellious and decadent. Even tatoo 'artists?" are upset now because tatoos are losing their counter culture stigma.
> 
> It is taking a mark upon your body by which you are trying to show our allegiance to something or communicate something about yourselve that you think is important. We must ask, what are we trying to communicate, what are we lacking, are we compensating for something? Tatoos send a variety of messages that may be beyond your ability to control.
> 
> In my humble opinion, tatoos are a dirty, filthy practice and I believe a slap in the face to God who has given us his mark, the Holy Spirit and who has given us some of his own INVISIBLE attributes. Futhermore, piercings on men are an acquiescence to the feminization of America. My advice: DON'T DO IT!
> 
> Real men don't need tatoos to prove they are tough; they don't need anything pierced to prove they can endure pain. Let God be the one you glory in, let God be the defender of your reputation. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of you mind.


----------



## raekwon

Reepicheep said:


> Guess which one is Richard Baxter and which one is me...



Pr. Felich, you may well just be my favorite new PB'er.


----------



## raekwon

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Paul recommend we see what Uncle Bawb thought so I went to check it out.
> 
> I thought it was stated in a goodly way.
> 
> Btw Bawb, I know you really don't do the clip on thing but what is your favorite colored purse. And is it more of a hand bag or what?
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
> 
> I believe the argument against tatoos is an intrinsic argument from the many verses condemning the worship of the creature and boastful pride. Getting a tatoo is a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I'm tough, I'm cool." It is an encouragement to glory in the flesh and not in the Lord.
> 
> Furthermore, they have long been associated with the rebellious and decadent. Even tatoo 'artists?" are upset now because tatoos are losing their counter culture stigma.
> 
> It is taking a mark upon your body by which you are trying to show our allegiance to something or communicate something about yourselve that you think is important. We must ask, what are we trying to communicate, what are we lacking, are we compensating for something? Tatoos send a variety of messages that may be beyond your ability to control.
> 
> In my humble opinion, tatoos are a dirty, filthy practice and I believe a slap in the face to God who has given us his mark, the Holy Spirit and who has given us some of his own INVISIBLE attributes. Futhermore, piercings on men are an acquiescence to the feminization of America. My advice: DON'T DO IT!
> 
> Real men don't need tatoos to prove they are tough; they don't need anything pierced to prove they can endure pain. Let God be the one you glory in, let God be the defender of your reputation. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of you mind.
Click to expand...


Stated well indeed. There are some assumptions one has to make that won't be true for some guys, but, it's a respectable position.


----------



## Reepicheep

raekwon said:


> Reepicheep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which one is Richard Baxter and which one is me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pr. Felich, you may well just be my favorite new PB'er.
Click to expand...


Rae, I'm honored. You don't tell that to all the newbies do you?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> When was the last time you saw a pic of R. L. Dabney or B. H. Carroll? Old age and long beards just look so awesome. Who needs earrings? Gray hair and long beards is where it is at.



 If my beard didn't curl up like a "Mike Brady perm", I'd be right there with you, brother. 

It's the "acting your age" part that gets me. I've been told that for almost as long as I can remember. So just which "age" am I supposed to "act"... 12... 16... 18... 25... 35... 45?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Reepicheep said:


> Guess which one is Richard Baxter and which one is me...



You are missing the mustache. (and the cool hat...)


----------



## nicnap

"Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people." (This was a post 52 by Pilgrim's Progeny)

Sorry...didn't know how to work the quote thing to narrow that down...but even people without earrings and without tattoos and who have nicely trimmed hair and dress to a T in a suit and tie can be stiff-necked and idolatrous. Maybe we should all go to togas and shaved heads....then we wouldn't be dressed as the idolaters...wait; the heart is an idol factory, and we are all stiff-necked...hmmmmm.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

nicnap said:


> "Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolatrous and stiff necked people." (This was a post 52 by Pilgrim's Progeny)
> 
> Sorry...didn't know how to work the quote thing to narrow that down...but even people without earrings and without tattoos and who have nicely trimmed hair and dress to a T in a suit and tie can be stiff-necked and idolatrous. Maybe we should all go to togas and shaved heads....then we wouldn't be dressed as the idolaters...wait; the heart is an idol factory, and we are all stiff-necked...hmmmmm.



The point I was making was that just because we see a certain practice by God's people, that does not make it right, especially if the people accompanying the practice are caught up in idolatry. I was pointing out that that was not the best context.

Practice does not govern principle, principle governs practice. I was not making a case for or against. I merely believe that that was not very solid ground to erect a principle.

I think the main thing is that we let our adornment be inward, much as Peter instructed the women, should it be no less for us men:


> Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
> But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
> 1 Peter 3:3-4


 Everything else aside, it is the heart that matters, for out of the heart flow the issues of life.


----------



## reformedman

I believe more references to jewelry can be found attributed to women in the bible than to men. Jewelry just seems natural to me, to be implied as a women's thing than to men because that's what it seems to me biblically speaking. Few examples:
1Tim 2:9
1Pet 3:3

Notice that in just the two above examples, the women were being directed not the men.

The verse doesn't say that it is wrong for women to wear them at all, but does imply that during worship and/or praise setting, they were the ones not to wear them.(v.12)

Since men weren't addressed it seems to me that men did not wear them, that they were acceptable (and exclusively) WOMEN'S ATTIRE. Therefore, for men to wear what was once (exclusively in my opinion)women's attire in history, today, and use the reasoning that it is now acceptable men's attire, is a bit weak. 

It is weak because you can then use this kind of reasoning for just about anything. For example, in American culture, lipstick is acceptable (and exclusively so) for women. If all the men of the west-coast of the United States start using lipstick, and people start to say, “There is no prohibition in the bible”, well then yes It’s true you can’t find it explicitly opposed to biblical orthopraxy. All you can use against it would be that:
---men are not to dress as women
---lipstick is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
I think that the problem here is that between the time of the 2nd and 3rd points, there has not been enough of a questioning about the 1st point that it has become normal culture today.

To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
---men are not to dress as women
---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
If no one says anything about men wearing lipstick long enough, it will become acceptable and the bible will not be consulted on the verse, “men are not to dress as women”.
I feel that it is never too late for Christians to always reform and go to the meaning behind the bible. I don't claim to know it perfectly, I only say that this is what the bible seems to indicate to me. I may be wrong, but it is the simplest reading that I see. Even if our culture has been wrong for the past 50 years, I believe men should go to the original intent.

Please excuse my poor English.


----------



## Pergamum

news reporters wear cosmetics. Even the men wear lipstick and blush, etc, to appear more healthy and alive as they render the news. Sometimes they overdo it and it is visible, but in most cases, it does improve their appearance.

I would not classify this as transvestitism or putting on women's apparel.

So here is one case in which I give a thumbs up for makeup on men.


----------



## regener8ed

It is not sinful for men to wear earrings. I dont wear them, but unless someone can show that it is sinful via scripture, then please keep your cultural observations to yourself and don't judge others as if they were committing sin. The most evil men in the world wear three piece suits, should we all stop wearing them?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

regener8ed said:


> It is not sinful for men to wear earrings. I dont wear them, but unless someone can show that it is sinful via scripture, *then please keep your cultural observations to yourself and don't judge others as if they were committing sin.* The most evil men in the world wear three piece suits, should we all stop wearing them?



Who said anything about judging? just discussing, right?


----------



## raekwon

It's been a pretty enjoyable discussion (for the most part), at that!


----------



## lwadkins

I had an earring for a few years, got it just to prove to my daughter that it wouldn't make me cool.  The piercing has long since grown over now.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

reformedman said:


> To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
> ---men are not to dress as women
> ---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
> ---therefore men may not use it.



The flaw in this logic is the second line. By whose standard are earrings exclusively for women? Maybe at certain times or certain cultures, but modern American culture isn't one of those. And there is no Biblical support for the notion that earrings are for women only. So I see no reason to believe earrings are exclusively for women, other than individual opinion. Therefore, I so no reason why men shouldn't wear them.


----------



## BobVigneault

Scripture says that men should look like men and women should look like women and that is to a large extent based on the prevailing culture.

If culture should turn the other way then you could have unecessary holes in your body.

Therefore, I keep going back to the clip ons. I'm going to start selling Christian oriented clip ons for men who feel the need to give in to the peer pressure.

If you want to have pretty ears like mother then buy one of my clip ons. Is it the earring or the piercing you want?

Join my organization called MAMCO. Men for the Advancement of Manly Clip-ons.

Should the culture embrace masculinity again, you'll be ready.

I need to find a famous sports figure to start wearing my clip ons and start a rage.


----------



## raekwon

ColdSilverMoon said:


> reformedman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
> ---men are not to dress as women
> ---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
> ---therefore men may not use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in this logic is the second line. By whose standard are earrings exclusively for women? Maybe at certain times or certain cultures, but modern American culture isn't one of those. And there is no Biblical support for the notion that earrings are for women only. So I see no reason to believe earrings are exclusively for women, other than individual opinion. Therefore, I so no reason why men shouldn't wear them.
Click to expand...


To be fair, there are *plenty* of reasons for men not to wear earrings, depending on the man and depending on the circumstances . . . just like there are reasons for men not to wear jeans, not to shave their heads, not to eat meat, etc etc etc. Wisdom and prudence come into heavy play with things like this.

But yes, I agree that there's no blanket biblical injunction against any of these things, nor do any of them necessarily indicate vanity or a lack of sobriety of mind.


----------



## Mushroom

reformedman said:


> I believe more references to jewelry can be found attributed to women in the bible than to men. Jewelry just seems natural to me, to be implied as a women's thing than to men because that's what it seems to me biblically speaking. Few examples:
> 1Tim 2:9
> 1Pet 3:3
> 
> Notice that in just the two above examples, the women were being directed not the men.
> 
> The verse doesn't say that it is wrong for women to wear them at all, but does imply that during worship and/or praise setting, they were the ones not to wear them.(v.12)
> 
> Since men weren't addressed it seems to me that men did not wear them, that they were acceptable (and exclusively) WOMEN'S ATTIRE. Therefore, for men to wear what was once (exclusively in my opinion)women's attire in history, today, and use the reasoning that it is now acceptable men's attire, is a bit weak.
> 
> It is weak because you can then use this kind of reasoning for just about anything. For example, in American culture, lipstick is acceptable (and exclusively so) for women. If all the men of the west-coast of the United States start using lipstick, and people start to say, “There is no prohibition in the bible”, well then yes It’s true you can’t find it explicitly opposed to biblical orthopraxy. All you can use against it would be that:
> ---men are not to dress as women
> ---lipstick is acceptable exclusively for women
> ---therefore men may not use it.
> I think that the problem here is that between the time of the 2nd and 3rd points, there has not been enough of a questioning about the 1st point that it has become normal culture today.
> 
> To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
> ---men are not to dress as women
> ---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
> ---therefore men may not use it.
> If no one says anything about men wearing lipstick long enough, it will become acceptable and the bible will not be consulted on the verse, “men are not to dress as women”.
> I feel that it is never too late for Christians to always reform and go to the meaning behind the bible. I don't claim to know it perfectly, I only say that this is what the bible seems to indicate to me. I may be wrong, but it is the simplest reading that I see. Even if our culture has been wrong for the past 50 years, I believe men should go to the original intent.
> 
> Please excuse my poor English.


Ok, this is getting out of hand. I can be convinced to put away the earrings, but now you're telling me I have to stop using my lipstick!?

Next thing you'll be saying I can't wear my muave pumps out of the house, and that will be the last straw!



Pierce history: "Wrong" ear pierced at age 15 by sister and friend while passed out under the effects of alcohol and drugs. Left ear pierced 2 weeks later in a similar state by self. Both ears became disgustingly infected, had the appearance of two red Christmas tree ornaments hanging from head for two more weeks. Yanked out silly "roach clip" earrings never to try again, but have the scars that used to freak out girls and barbers, which I guess wouldn't anymore, but my wife cuts my hair now and that solves both those problems. My kids have a lot of fun with it, though.


----------



## Stephen

Amazing Grace said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, something like "Left is right, right is wrong" to help people remember. The right ear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not see your response to Amazing Grace. If you are going to wear an earring, never wear it in the right ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well i ahve holes in both, so does that make me a metrosexual or something? Or just stupid!!!!
Click to expand...


Just a man with holes in his ears. It is ok as long as you don't have holes in your head


----------



## Stephen

ericfromcowtown said:


> I remember my brother coming home one day, at 14 or 15, with an earring in one ear. My dad ignored my brother, turned to me and said "you know Eric there are two types of men who wear earrings, pirates and homosexuals, and you don't see too many pirates around any more." My brother turned on his heals and walked out of the room. We never did see that earring again.
> 
> In all seriousness though, earrings aren't my thing, but since there is nothing unbiblical about them their use should be a matter of personal taste and liberty.


----------



## shackleton

BobVigneault said:


> Do they have to be pierced earrings? I love to rummage through mother's clip ons and wear some of hers when I just want to feel pretty. I'm so grateful that America got feminized. I can cry, wear a shoulder bag, make up, clip ons, gold chains and evening gowns.
> 
> 
> Ok, of course I was joking. I don't wear clip ons.



I guess we are to take from that that you do in fact wear evening gowns? On what occasions to you wear them and what color best brings out your eyes?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

When I see a man wearing an earring (singular), my first thought is he _might_ be making a statement that he is not part of the establishment / straight / suited / uptight culture, and identifies with some "counter-culture" coolness of sorts. But then I realize this may be way off, and prefer to see who the man is at heart by talking with him. One just can't make a call by judging the "outward appearance."

I realize also that there is, even in the wider Christian community, a strong bias against the counterculture, especially the "Woodstock generation" of yore, where earrings and such were common. Anyone desiring to see an essay critiquing that view, PM me and I'll send them, "Can There Anything Good Come Out Of Woodstock?"

Manliness has nothing to do with physique, physical prowess, dress codes, cultural fashions, but with a heart true to one's King (_the_ king) and one's wife, a willingness to suffer for the sake of loyalty and integrity, and having the ability to love, speak the truth, and be gracious in the face of opposition and persecution.

Manliness also pertains to the maintaining of one's dignity through awareness of the Son of God's favor, even while being degraded, humiliated, and shunned. It is carrying oneself in the Spirit of Christ.

The Kingdom I am part of is comprised of many cultures, peoples, and even kingdoms. There is great diversity of taste and manner among this diverse yet unified people. I do not accept that one style is the style of the Kingdom. There is one _heart_ and one _spirit_ as we all partake of the Spirit of Christ.

There is to be no cultural imperialism by one dominant group over another, not in Heaven's kingdom! Our standing is not by our outward appearance, if it be modest and decent, but by the love of our Sovereign -- our Father and our Brother.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BobVigneault said:


> Scripture says that men should look like men and women should look like women and that is to a large extent based on the prevailing culture.
> 
> If culture should turn the other way then you could have unecessary holes in your body.
> 
> Therefore, I keep going back to the clip ons. I'm going to start selling Christian oriented clip ons for men who feel the need to give in to the peer pressure.
> 
> If you want to have pretty ears like mother then buy one of my clip ons. Is it the earring or the piercing you want?
> 
> Join my organization called MAMCO. Men for the Advancement of Manly Clip-ons.
> 
> Should the culture embrace masculinity again, you'll be ready.
> 
> I need to find a famous sports figure to start wearing my clip ons and start a rage.






Brad said:


> Pierce history: "Wrong" ear pierced at age 15 by sister and friend while passed out under the effects of alcohol and drugs. Left ear pierced 2 weeks later in a similar state by self. Both ears became disgustingly infected, had the appearance of two red Christmas tree ornaments hanging from head for two more weeks. Yanked out silly "roach clip" earrings never to try again, but have the scars that used to freak out girls and barbers, which I guess wouldn't anymore, but my wife cuts my hair now and that solves both those problems. My kids have a lot of fun with it, though.





ROFLMHO

H stands for hiney


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ROFLMHO
> 
> H stands for hiney


 
Never seen that one before that makes me want to ROFLMHO


----------



## Archlute

raekwon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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).]
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## raekwon

Hey Pr. Myer. Thanks for the rejoinder.

First, let me say that I appreciate the manner in which you've carefully thought things through here. Though I obviously think that some of your conclusions are wrong, I appreciate the fact that you don't appear to be coming at this from an angle that's strictly cultural, but you're instead considering where all of this fits in the context of the Scriptural requirements for eldership. Of course, that's what I'd expect from any duly called and ordained under-shepherd of Christ's flock, but it's refreshing to see in action. Too many times, Christians (even pastors... ESPECIALLY pastors, in some cases) simply point to tradition and/or the "good ol' days" and attempt to pass it off as some sort of scriptural mandate. Glad to see that not happening here.

Still, I find it troubling that you find that a man who appears to be qualified and called to hold the office of elder should be dismissed from consideration because of a piece of jewelry. Now, I understand at this point you may be saying that the wearing of an earring (or two) would show such a man to *not be qualified* in your estimation, as you believe that it would show a lack of sober-mindedness. As a matter of fact, I can understand such thinking if you have to make a judgment based on appearances only.

But let's take a situation like mine . . .

Say you have a man in your church. He appears to meet all of the requirements for eldership. He loves his wife and his children, has made sound decisions that have contributed to a peaceful, Christ-centrered home, has been a believer for years, is of good repute with those within and without the church, teaches well, is theologically astute, is well-read, loves the Gospel, has been shepherding exercising leadership in the congregation already through various avenues, and aspires to the office of elder. He also happens to wear a small earring in each ear. When the time comes to elect new elders and this man expresses his desire to help you shepherd the flock, are the earrings really going to make a difference? With the above factors, I don't understand how such a position is biblically tenable, and in fact, it might be a violation of the Regulative Principle. One cannot require a called, qualified man to look or dress in a certain way in order to fill office without such a violation. (And you may lose a valuable leader in your church.)

I understand that in your estimation, a man wearing earrings must be trying to "make a statement", either about how cool he is, how non-conformist he is (which, by the way, is not necessarily a disregard of the 5th Commandment), or how attractive he is. That probably was largely the case in the prevailing cultures of a few decades ago, and it's certainly still true for many men today. I'm just not convinced that such is largely the case anymore. I can't speak for any other man, but as for me . . . I just personally like the way they look, much like I like the way a certain shirt, pair of shoes, or necktie looks. If this is vanity, then I suppose I'm off to pick up some burlap sacks to wear around. 

As far as some perceived danger of youths using me as an excuse to defy their parents . . . first, I can't think of many parents in our church who would have a problem with their boys wearing earrings. I could be wrong. Second, it's my hope that my manner of life will be what kids want to emulate, not my fashion sense (if I even have one). If a kid wants to poke holes in his ears after his parents say "no" and he tries to say "well, Rae has them and he's an ELDER", my hope would be that the parents would have the sense to say something like "Rae's also a grown man with a wife, a daughter, a job, a house, and two cars. You have a bike and an XBox that we paid for. Be quiet."

Anyway . . . I know that I probably wouldn't get a second look for the office of elder in 99% of the reformed churches in America, and for more factors than the earrings. I'm thankful that the Lord saw fit to bring me to a Gospel-centered church that's willing to give leadership opportunities to guys that might not (or might) look like leaders, but exhibit leadership qualities, love for the Gospel, and love for God's people. 

Grace and peace to you as well.


----------



## raekwon

So, I'm thinking about making a thread about the vanity of wearing neckties.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

raekwon said:


> So, I'm thinking about making a thread about the vanity of wearing neckties.




I don't wear a knecklesses, neckties, rings, or a watch. I don't own any of these either. I am just a good ole Redneck who is known by God and has three sons to adorn my life.


----------



## PastorTim

sorry to say I am a little behind the times. I still haven't caught up to the need for women to add ornaments to themselves. Can we improve on what God has designed, hmmm?


----------



## Reepicheep

Individual expressions through certain things like jewelry, hair style, clothing, seems completely within the realm of Christian Liberty. Clothing can get more dicey, but in general, one's particular taste expressed in the same is no big deal in my mind. 

As I think about individual expressions in such areas, I am reminded (seriously) of the various Westminster divines. Some wore the English wig things. Some didn't. Some grew full beards, others, like Richard Baxter, had a sweet soul patch (see pic in my above post). For a guy to have a soul patch he must be careful to groom it. This denotes taking careful time about a certain style one is sporting. The Puritans expressed themselves this way, I just don't see how similar expressions should ever be a reason for one to judge another as immature or the like. Sure, a dude with an earring might be immature...but I've met many immature guys who look just like all these pictures you guys use as avatars or whatever their called. 

Just one man's opinion. I think I'll go get a mohawk....


----------



## servantofmosthigh

*Amen!!!*



bookslover said:


> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
Click to expand...


I wholeheartedly agree with you there, brother! I grew up most of my childhood and teenage years in San Francisco. And the ONLY men who wore earrings in San Francisco were homosexuals.

Also, homosexual men in prison wore their pants halfway-down the buttocks to tell the other male prisoners about their status.

Isn't it sad how both of these historically homosexual originations have now become fashionable to men?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

servantofmosthigh said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bookslover,
> Are you wanting us to validate your getting an earring?
> For what it's worth, I have one but I haven't worn it for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm just curmudgeonly enough to think that, in our culture, earrings should be for females...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with you there, brother! I grew up most of my childhood and teenage years in San Francisco. And the ONLY men who wore earrings in San Francisco were homosexuals.
> 
> Also, homosexual men in prison wore their pants halfway-down the buttocks to tell the other male prisoners about their status.
> 
> Isn't it sad how both of these historically homosexual originations have now become fashionable to men?
Click to expand...

 
Sadly, this can be said of many things across the board as far as fashion goes, for men and women alike, historically taboo fashions are now the norm, even in Christian circles.


----------



## Grymir

servantofmosthigh said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you there, brother! I grew up most of my childhood and teenage years in San Francisco. And the ONLY men who wore earrings in San Francisco were homosexuals.
> 
> Also, homosexual men in prison wore their pants halfway-down the buttocks to tell the other male prisoners about their status.
> 
> Isn't it sad how both of these historically homosexual originations have now become fashionable to men?



I didn't know about the pants thing.  (So true too)

The OP was talking about older people getting earings. I really saw a 60 yr old woman with a nose ring dressed in skimpy cloths. It really made me think like the OP did. Why? I don't get it. (Although I wish I could still grow my hair long like I did when I was 20, but being a business manager, it wouldn't look right anymore either, sigh). I have wondered if the people are trying to relive their younger years, ignore death, or are trying to fit in with the world's culture (or trying to be a youth pastor at Rob Bell's church )


----------



## shackleton

That "pants half way down" thing is very interesting, especially when you take into account that young people walk around like that thinking that they are cool. 

Other fashion statements stolen from prison life, spider web on the elbow tattoos, (which means you've been in the joint), a lot of younger people are walking around with these and other various tattoos trying to give others the impression that they are _tough_.


----------

