A non-essential question about hair

[Basil Shannon]

I don't post often, but I have have been blessed by the insights and information on this board.

I have a question about men wearing long hair and beards. No man in my parish, including our priest, has a beard and long hair. A respected friend who is a former seminarian from Jordanville told me that as living icons of Christ it is good for us to reflect Christ, not only in our actions, but even in our appearance. Is this okay for laity as well, or is not cutting ones hair and beard a symbol of ordained clergy or tonsured monks?

Basil

[Herman Blaydoe]

Don't know about other places, but Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos (ACROD) has informed his clergy that beards and long hair are unnecessary. He keeps his hair and beard short. He seems to feel that long hair and beards among the laity can tend towards pretention. Our first bishops were clean-shaven. I think he is trying to make the point that inner and authentic spirituality is more important than outward appearance. It is easy (for some of us) to be hirsuit, not so easy to be spiritual. But that might just be me.

Herman the Hairy

[Edward Henderson]

I know that Saint Cosmos the Aiatolian instructed that all Orthodox men should gave beards. Ofcourse, the Mosaic Law does prohibit shaving. I can add that it is the practice of laymen who are Old Ritualists or Old Believers to cut their hair short but leave their beard untrimmed. We have also seen this trend among Russian writers such as Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Solzinitsin. So, I think we can conclude that traditionally, the Church has taught that all men should grow their facial hair. Today, this is usually not enforced upon laymen but still upon clergy. It is also has been a practice in Orthodox countries to shave a cleric who has been defrocked.

As for long hair, I once heard Father Thomas Hopko explain that originally clergy did not have long hair. The Byzantine Emperors and Princes, as well as the Slavic Tsars and Princes did not cut their hair, unless they went to a monastery. When the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks, the Patriarch of Constantinople became a civil authority for the Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. That was when the custom of Mitre came into the Church. So, if that is correct (and I would welcome anybody's comments), we might be able to assume that the Ecumenical Patriarch probably stopped cutting his hair, and as bishops came from the monks,this practice spred among monastics and then onto married clergy. This parallels the mitre. Originally only the Ecumenical Patriarch wore a mitre, then it spread to the other Patriarchs and onto Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Bishops. In the Russian Church, Archimandrites and Archpriest (Protopresbyter to all you Greeks out there!) also wear mitres. It is also interesting to point out that in the current Greek practice, when a Patriarch is serving a liturgical service, the other lower ranking hierarchs do not wear their mitres. I noticed this in 2000 during the consecration service and glorification service of the New Matyrs at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow. None of the visiting Greek Bishops, except the Arcnbishop of Cyprus (I suppose because he is a preciding hierarch), wore their mitres. So I will stop now before I ramble on more.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My first spiritual father told me that in the ancient East of the Roman Empire where fashionable men wore their hair short, Christians or at least monastics wore their hair long. In the West where fashionable men wore their hair long (Germanic style) Christians or at least monastics had their hair cut short in a tonsure. Whether this is historically correct or not I think it still contains an important point-long hair or short, guided by discernment our way of dressing & appearing is supposed to convey the message 'not of this world'.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alex Haig]

I've always been told that the reason Orthodox monastics (and by extension married clergy) don't cut their hair and beard but Romans do is one and the same, to prevent vanity. The Orthodox viewpoint: don't touch your hair at all lest you become vain; the Roman: don't allow any hair to grow lest you become vain!

I don't think there is any theological reason for doing one or the other, it's just a case of tradition (NB, 't', not 'T' in tradition). I don't think the instructions given in the Old Testament apply in this case as they are for the Levitical Priesthood.

With love in Christ

Alex

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is worth noting that in Greek, there is no differentiation in meaning or standard usage between capitalisation and non-capitalisation. We could all learn something from this. There is only one manner of tradition, whether capitalised or not. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Alex Haig]

Indeed, however in this forum we are conversing in English, where there is a difference (if only perceived). :-p

With love in Christ

Alex

[M.C. Steenberg]

Ah, but let us correct the perceptions! My bemused comment above was meant to suggest my rather more serious conviction that attempts at distinguishing between 'tradition' and 'Tradition' have the tinge of something extra-orthodox about them. It is only within the relatively modern context that a belief has arisen that some aspects of tradition are inconsequential, while others are fundamental to the faith. The heritage of Orthodoxy would speak otherwise: all aspects, everything in the tradition, is intimately tied into the life of the faith. Whether hair or filioque, oil on Wednesdays or keeping fasts at all -- we can't separate the minor from the major.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes I once did a paper on this subject trying to connect the concept of Tradition/traditions to Christology. Of course right away one can see the problem as Matthew states it. To see Tradition apart from tradition as if the latter were of little consequence is akin to seeing the Incarnation as being inconsequential and seeing only the Pre-eternal Logos as being important. In a real sense the disparagement of tradition in our day bears certain similarities to iconoclasm- and indeed gives us a glimpse as to the spirit that may have led to the disparagement of icons.

If Tradition is how the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the traditions of the Church are manifestations of the Holy Spirit and not irrelevant or secondary. In fact there is no such thing as Tradition without traditions. I would submit that within the Church we only have what is a manifestation of Tradition (not to say that these are cast in concrete or can never change- on the contrary since the Holy Spirit is active & living within the Church) and what is not really Tradition at all, but merely worldly custom.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

I think it's important to understand that iconoclasm is typically a violent reaction against an ossified tradition which acts as a substitute for real spiritual experience and transformation. So while we wish to defend tradition, it is for a higher purpose, not an end in itself. We want it to be a living tradition. There can be tradition in which the Holy Spirit is virtually absent.

[Moses Anthony]

There's a web site dedicated to Orthodox apologetics out of Hawaii, which has an essay about this which may be of interest to some here. www.orlapubs.com (http://www.orlapubs.com), go to part R, click on sub-index, scroll down to R82, and peruse what this former teacher has to say.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Moses,

I can't find an 'R82' on that page ... are you certain it's the right number?

Though if the triangle-diagram of the Trinity is any sign of things to come, I'm a bit nervous already.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen, I read your comment with interest -- and agreement. I think the Orthodox attitude, at a deep level, is to suggest that there really isn't any tradition that is static and lifeless, only the living tradition of the Church. That which is dry, which is static and absented from the Spirit, is in fact not tradition, not matter how repetetive, how historical, how inherited. It is the truest, fullest measure of the 'vain repetition' against which Christ warns. Genuine tradition is always that which is the life of the Spirit.

One of the problems that modern society has with 'traditionalist Christianity' stems I think, at least in part, by this tendency towards false dichotomisation between 'Tradition/tradition', which allows for a dead, lifeless tradition.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

But I think the problem runs deeper, largely with clergy training, in doing the things a parish does becomes the tradition, but it has a tendency to become dead and lifeless, or believing the things that we historically believe, because that is what he has been taught, so then you have the people who want to change everything, thinking that is the problem, the lack of change they experience internally is externalized, so they want to change all of the externals, or you have the folks that believe that there must be some outward display of emotion to prove that faith is real, and that engenders a reaction among people who don't want to change anything, who want to keep things as they are, but both are looking at the externals, and both "camps" become an obstacle to a living faith.

It's what takes place inwardly that matters, but most clergy, Orthodox, RC, Protestant, are trained in the externals of faith and belief, not in the ancient teachings of the inner life. So they can't preach about the inner life, or instruct regarding the inner life, they focus on the externals. I don't say this in a way to suggest that I somehow have a patent on how to live the inner life properly, far from it. It's just a general observation, with many exceptions, good exceptions of course. But our doctrine is a doctrine of change, and that change is an inner revolution, which is the most difficult, and, let's say, deadly revolution imaginable, because we put ourselves to death, but it is so easy to demand an outward revolution as a substitute, and to be an advocate of that "cause" and become a kind of leader in the revolution that is going to change everything, because we believe we have the Holy Spirit. But it is not motivated by obedience and love but by a spirit of rebellion and resentment. And the counter-revolution is motivated by fear and bitterness. So we are back to that reality that exists in between, which is so hard to find and perhaps very few people ever find, really, but we can tell the difference when we meet them, if we are fortunate to run across such people.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Owen,

It is only to the extent that we "put ourselves to death" as you say and absolutely stop making demands on others & the situation that we find ourselves in that we find the peace of Christ. We already find ourselves in the Church through nothing good on our part. So Christ calls us to repent, be humble and show an active love & compassion for others. Through this we will truly begin to perceive the wonder of Christ's Church before us for we will be becoming active members of His Body and will recognise how His grace works even through His sinful members. But if we reject the means He Himself sets before us how can we expect to actively sense & have an acute awareness of His Body the Church?

Being 'dead & lifeless', spinning one's wheels spiritually happens first on the personal level & then manifests itself on the parish level. Invariably this is caused by lack of love for God & neighbour. So when we see this around us (and most certainly we will to some extent since all are weak) then we must step forward and begin loving God & neighbour. If we do this miracles will happen no matter where we are.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

You know this is taking me away from watching the ALCS game (go Yankees). I made a quick check -as I've got the site 'bookmarked'-, and yes the article is there. I rummaged through the articles I've printed out, and found similar essays and articles from www.fatheralexander.org (http://www.fatheralexander.org). Click on Saints and Their Writings; scroll to Fr. George Florovsky, where you'll find On Church and Tradition. An Eastern Orthodox view (This has 10 pages of notes)

The other article is at www.jacwell.org (http://www.jacwell.org). Click on Archives, then Articles from Back Issues, Themes, scroll to The End is Where we Start From(Spring-Summer 0f '99). The author is Deborah Malacky Belonick. I suspect that the article from the first site referenced, is more along the lines of the conversation here.

Oh yes; What is the concern with the triangle-diagram of the Trinity?

[M. Rallis]

Dear Owen and Father Raphael:

I'm not sure what you all are referring to as "externals". In my own experience of Orthodox Parish life, I suppose Parish General Assembly meetings, coffee hour, annual festivals could all be seen as examples of "externals". Yet each offers an opportunity for the practice of Christian virtue, an opportunity that is unique in its juxtapostion of "worldly" activities occuring in and around God's temple. And each is an opportunity for self-evaluation, i.e. humility, in respect to how easily adverse circumstances can bring out how weak is our resolve to see and treat our fellow parishioners as an icon of our Lord.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

It seems to me that Owen is appropriately suggesting that Tradition is meant to be both external and internal. Sometimes the externals develop for very practical reasons and at other times theological reasons. I think an example would be that it is a common tradition in some Orthodox Churches to cross ones hands over your chest when approaching the Chalice for Holy Communion. This tradition can be understood in a few ways first as a physical posture which is a physical manifestation of humility before God at such a holy time which is the very essence of any patristic explanation that might be applicable. I would further add that if a person assumes this posture and shortly thereafter finds oneself behaving or thinking in a way that is not so humble as I often do then the struggle continues.

The aforementioned Tradition is also a matter of reasonableness insofar as the crossing of ones arms is done instead of making the sign of the cross with a motion, it is a stationary cross and a safeguard. This tradition is in place to prevent the raising of ones hands while approaching or in front of the Chalice to avoid accidentally bumping the Chalice with your hand before or after you receive the Eucharist. Since we often make the sign of the Cross in Church almost instinctively it is a legitimate concern. Additionally, in some Churches you will see that the left hand is placed over the right hand to stop the motion of the right hand in front of the Chalice if one understandably begins to make the motion of the sign of the cross with the right hand. If you try it and put your left hand and arm over your right acrosss your chest and try to lift your right hand and cross yourself you will find that the motion is hindered.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Michael Rallis,

I don't think I was speaking of "externals" but rather what some refer to as the distinction between Tradition and traditions. If you mean my remark about "worldly custom" I only meant anything that really doesn't belong in the Church & not something like coffee hour or a parish council meeting.

Apart from this I entirely agree with your point.

The Tradition of the Church should be manifest in coffee hour as much as in any other aspect of Church life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Perhaps a better distinguishing terminology would be "Holy Tradition" and "folk tradition"; the latter referring to the "pious customs" which evolve in communities. A few of these folk customs may even be contrary to Holy Tradition, and this can lead to confusion about what is "right".

[Basil Shannon]

Here is an article I read today on www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/ (http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/). It's a fairly scathing article on converts and a tendency to be overzealous:

"Orthodox Fundamentalism"


By observation for some time now, it seems that Orthodox fundamentalism is alive and well. In all of the Orthodox jurisdictions in America there seems to be those who are insisting that Orthodox men must have pony tails and beards and women must wear long ugly dresses and babushkas. Furthermore, within the clergy ranks, there is a movement for all clerics to wear cassocks at all times everywhere and must for scraggily facial hair and funny hats. It doesn't stop here, but goes beyond the externals into a fundamentalist mindset of following so-called "traditional Orthodox" ideals. Upon examination, one finds that these ideals aren't necessarily traditionally Orthodox, but a weird mixture of fundamentalism and an adherence to anything pre-1900 from Russia or Greece. Many converts coming to Orthodoxy are grabbing on to this "life-style" thinking that "this" is the real Orthodoxy. Who is teaching this stuff?

After some searching, it seems that there are some less educated clerics preaching this as the Orthodox norm - even bishops. On closer examination, much of this comes from convert clerics who have "found the true light!" It seems that this influence is becoming more prevalent in America and many parishes are having to appease a wave of "Super-Orthodox" who look as if they would be more comfortable on Mount Athos. Their dogmatic adherence to the "letter of the law" and lack of understanding of the "spirit of the law" complicates teaching of what Orthodoxy really is in following Christ.

It could be that this generation needs a regimentation of a certain look and way of thinking to believe they are Orthodox and not Protestant or Roman Catholic, but this becomes cultic in its approach. Like "Orthodox Home-Boys" the only thing lacking are the pierced body parts and tattoos, or are they? This phenomenon is puzzling and will cause more issues for the Orthodox faithful as this spreads. The clash between this fundamental approach to Orthodoxy and the norm hopefully will correct itself, but not without more friction and problems!

Nicholas Cobb


Any responses to this point-of-view?

Basil

[Owen Jones]

I have also seen good converts attacked and vilified as "fundamentalists," myself included, by ethnic clerics who wish to become very modern, like the Episcopalians. So this article really has to be judged on the context.

[Owen Jones]

My comment about externals has to do with change. Christianity, following Christ, is all about change. The change is an inner change, not an external change. He said the world, externally, will not change, and, in many cases, will, or appear, to get worse and worse. The inner life is the key. Man is the macrocosm. When we change inwardly, everything changes because man is the macrocosm. But the temptation by Satan is always, ALWAYS, to focus on changing the externals, to fix the world. This demonstrates the nature of sin, which is a distraction of our sense perception, a drawing away from our sense perception from the inner, macrocosmos, to externals. Now, this is not to say that external practices in the Church are meaningless or unimportant, but they are meant to reflect changes in the inner life. If one attends Church and receives communion all one's life, and nothing has ever changed inwardly, then the person is living a double life. This is the key pastoral problem for clergy -- how to help people, in a loving but disciplined manner, to focus on their inner lives, without creating a hostile backlash, like the one the nailed Christ to the Cross. Because Satan does not want us to look at our inner lives. He wants us to focus on the externals, to get in arguments about the externals, to go to war over externals.

[Basil Shannon]

My unscholarly response to Cobb was this:

As one of those converts, whom you speak of so disparagingly, I would like to suggest that even if converts show a greater desire to invite Orthodoxy to inform every area of their life so that they might leave behind the "old man," which for them is an identity of heterodox belief, then I think that should be approached with a little more empathy from craddle Orthodox believers. Of course, their zeal must be checked with the understanding that we do not hold customs of grooming, or those things we call little "t's," legalistically. To discount the spirituality of these converts based on appearances, is uncharitable and only leads to distrust between believers from both backgrounds.

It seems the ethnic Orthodoxy of America are focused on fitting in with American culture, while preserving the faith; whereas, American converts desire to separate themselves from their heterodox American heritage and drink from the deep wells of Orthodoxy, seeking a total break with their former identity. It is nearly miraculous for an American to discover Orhtodoxy so, naturally there is great emotion or zeal involved in discovering the ancient faith. This enthusiasm, if bridled by Orthodox discipline, can be the steam that propels the Church in America forward to greater heights, with God's mercy.

[Nancy Forderhase]

> The last two posts delineate the "tension" between converts and > cradle Orthodox, and perceptive people of both persuasions can see > themselves in this discussion. Owen's post eloquently points out the > need for inner "change" on the part of all Orthodox Christians who > seek to grow in the Faith. And as a convert myself, I am sympathetic > to Basil's point of view because so many converts are fleeing from > what they perceive as a "total break from their previous identity," > and so, perhaps to many Cradle Orthodox and to more moderate > observers, they go overboard in their effort to escape the trappings > of secular culture.. It's easy to ridicule those converts who are > more Orthodox than the Orthodox in their eager adoption of head > scarves and prayer ropes and even "costumes" associated with the old > country. These are the very things that newly arrived Orthodox > immigrants seek to escape as they work to "fit in" with trendy > American cultural fashions. And so it goes. There are no easy ways > to resolve these differences, except, perhaps to understand both > perspectives. Nobody ever said that being Orthodox was an easy path, > but those of us who have found the "True Faith" are grateful to be in > the Church and will search for the deeper questions and continue to > tolerate one another.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that Nicholas Cobb is looking at the externals more than the inner effort of those trying to lead an Orthodox life. Of course excess & mistake can be found on all sides but for the most part I would say from personal experience that most are simply trying to lead an Orthodox life to the best of their ability.

That there are changes in Orthodoxy compared to past times is correct. This is only natural as the ship of the Church sails through the sea of this world. In a general sense the Church is more traditional than fifty years ago but at least a part of this is in response to the times we find ourselves in- a time more ambiguous morally, spiritually & culturally than fifty years ago. People will often come to the Church searching for & clinging to its essence & this will be naturally reflected in all manner of dress, speech, etc. All of this by the way is talked about positively in the Holy Frs and is a natural incarnational aspect of our life in Christ.

I would also add that I do not agree that this change in Orthodoxy is at all restricted to converts or 'fundamentalists'. The change is on a deeper more positive level of trying to find the anchor points of the Faith and one finds this in almost every national Orthodox church among cradle-Orthodox and converts; Russians & Americans; old & young.

Of course mistakes can and will be made. But I believe that what we see in Orthodoxy right now is deeply positive and reflects something which we should consciously begin to recognise and support. Anyone who has been Orthodox for a few decades can tell you that recent unity and efforts towards reconciliation are virtually unprecedented in our time. And this unity has come about at least partly because of the deeper unity of mind and heart among the faithful.

As we said the dangers are there. I would say that a chief danger is to overlook the amazing gift that God has granted us all right now at this point in the history of His Church. But having done (or rather while doing this) how to proceed?

There is a word of Patristic advice which is very sane spiritually but is far too often overlooked in our day. This word is so essential to our spiritual life but tragically I have seen many fly off the road altogether by not following this wise advice. This word is "the Royal Road". This refers to keeping on the sane, balanced, spiritual path guided by discernment. A path enlightened by the Gospel of Christ's love for God & man above all and aided by spiritual Holy Frs, both those among the ranks of saints and those among us who act as our active spiritual fathers (also let's not forget spiritual mothers). The dangers of falling off the Royal Road are: falling to the left into worldliness and indifference to the things of God; or falling to the right into mistaking means for ends, lack of compassion, rigidity of thought.

None of the above comes easily. In the natural course of our spiritual struggle we often gradually move from one side of the road to the other and back again. So in many cases the language of categorising each other into liberal & fundamentalist, mistakes inner intent & motives, and we make things even worse since we tend to give these terms a negative meaning using them to attack others.

We must attempt to build up the Church, not pull down. This comes across in our attitudes towards each other. As we have seen an obsession with criticising others does nothing to help the Church but rather spreads more chaos & confusion. On the other hand if in Christ we seek to grow in sympathy for others I really do think we will begin to see the positive in the efforts of others even if they seem externally different from us. After all the Church is made up of distinct members but these are all tied together in Christ. But we must ourselves also be tied into the Body (ie sympathise with those different from us) in order to perceive that we are part of the Body in the first place.
Unity does not come from us trying to force others into our intellectual or emotional perceptions of the Church- it comes from us entering the Church seeing others as precious members of the Body and then attracting them to this vision & reality.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

I think there is the adoption of ethnic customs and then there is just piety. Growing a beard, covering one's head, and carrying a prayer rope (and hopefully using it), are general pious customs. To criticise one for their devotion is simply impolite and overbearing. On the other hand, if they start talking with a Greek or Russian accent (or much worse learn those languages and then pretend not to speak their own language too well),or wearing loud ethnic clothes... then there might be a problem. I don't see the idea of women covering their heads in Church, wearing long sleeves and long dresses as "ethnic". At the same time, a beard does not make someone a Slav. There are even Protestant and Sectarian Christian groups, whose women are encouraged to wear long dresses and long sleeves. I don't see a problem with short sleeves, especially coming from Florida.

As for clergy, I think it is best for them to wear a cassock and riassa, as opposed to the "clergy shirt and collar." This is what Orthodox clergy wear in the Orthodox countries, so one cannot call them Greek or Russian. It actually makes a great witnessing tool for Orthodoxy, as one Priest told me. I remember travelling on pilgrimage with some monks and they often had people coming up to them while refuling the car, in a restaurant, or grocery store. For some, it may have been their first exposure to Orthodoxy. I am sure this would not have happened had they been wearing pants, a clergy shirt and collar.

[Arsenios]

I tend to be on the fundamentalist side of Orthodoxy, in terms of wanting very much, being a late life convert to Christianity, and that Christianity Orthodoxy, to acquire that faith. So that my desire is to change as much as I am able to change from what I was to what is of Christ. I do not have much time... So that everything that I can do that keeps me in mind of Christ, and of the praxis of Orthodoxy, and helps me not to forget God, as I so easily do throughout the day, is really a big plus... And compromise is not much of a part of what I see as helpful in that effort...

And I sense an almost baptismal cultural grace in the US for the institution of Orthodoxy as an American Church, and for the emergence and creation of saints here, for the footings to be set in place, so that America and the west can have the cultural opportunity to embrace the ancient faith...

Americans called to Orthodoxy do not wish to do anything BUT embrace the ancient faith. They very much DO want to be counter-cultural. They see this culture, and very much want to make a visible living statement against its wanton self-worship and sensuality, and they want to do it in a way that lets America know the loving good-heartedness of the ancient faith, and its disregard for self-concern, and its living repentance from self unto holiness...

They will make mistakes in being overly zealous, no doubt, but they will not be content with merely doing the forms of Orthodox worship, nor will they embrace ecumenical efforts that take away the faith, in their new-found idealism - And we should face it, many are VERY idealistic, and the 'true-believer' syndrome will be one that many will have to overcome... But these are simply the birthing pains of Orthodoxy in the Americas, where the cultural womb is what it is, Roman and Protestant, in a body that has gobs of admixture of all manner of confusion and evil, in a very materialistic and sensual culture...

For myself, I can only say that I am utterly blessed to have even a small part in it... Orthodoxy is birthing in America, and needs us all... We are fortunate to be alive now...

We need, I should think, to be spiritual Stylites, not in any brazen manner, nor living on poles, but in ways that really shine forth and make a statement in deeds, that the Orthodox faith will become known... Even in the little that we have done so far, the Orthodox faith has become legendary among many Protestants...

And I have seen the excesses reined in by fellow Orthodox in a good way - I have been reined in myself on occassion - And there is little more spiritually rewarding than apologizing to someone who is "wrong", begging their forgiveness, and asking for their prayers, and praying for them, and discovering that we are at least as wrong...


Arsenios

[Paul Cowan]

Oh yes; What is the concern with the triangle-diagram of the Trinity?

The triangle shows the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well as the Father. We only believe the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. So the bottom bar of the triangle should not be there.

[Paul Cowan]

Don't know about other places, but Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos (ACROD) has informed his clergy that beards and long hair are unnecessary. He keeps his hair and beard short. He seems to feel that long hair and beards among the laity can tend towards pretention. Our first bishops were clean-shaven. I think he is trying to make the point that inner and authentic spirituality is more important than outward appearance. It is easy (for some of us) to be hirsuit, not so easy to be spiritual. But that might just be me.

Herman the Hairy

Herman,

You might like this blog spot from my priest.

How Orthodox is your priest? (http://saintjameskids.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-orthodox-is-your-priest.html)