Clergy hair and beards

[Christophoros]

CONCERNING THE TRADITION OF LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
(Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996)

The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair and beards.

Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.

There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.

Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21: 5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6).

The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed without question till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?

The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," in Slavonic, and "towels" touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).

If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.

In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from the anatomical or physical term for hair.1 Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls".

In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ing concerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women"2 (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling away from the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." [!]~

Igumen Luke


Footnotes:
1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 354.
2) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455
3) The Rudder, tranS. D. Cummings, p.403.
4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98.

[Alice]

CONCERNING THE TRADITION OF LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
(Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996)

The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair and beards.

Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.

There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.

Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21: 5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6).

The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed without question till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?

The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," in Slavonic, and "towels" touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).

If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.

In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from the anatomical or physical term for hair.1 Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls".

In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ing concerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women"2 (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling away from the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." [!]~

Igumen Luke


Footnotes:
1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 354.
2) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455
3) The Rudder, tranS. D. Cummings, p.403.
4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98.

I humbly, because I am no one, offer, that perhaps externals in and of themselves will not get us into Heaven, but rather how loving our hearts are--and in that love, we are also told by our Lord and all the Fathers not to be judgemental of others.

Just a simple thought,
Agape,
Alice

[Christophoros]

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.

- Blessed Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

[Father David Moser]

Is there a point to this thread? Or is it just an excuse to push an agenda about the so called "traditional appearance" of clergy? If you have a question or a comment please post it rather than just citing a long outdated article (the author has not been an igumen in a long time and is now the newly installed abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery)

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

Is there a point to this thread? Or is it just an excuse to push an agenda about the so called "traditional appearance" of clergy? If you have a question or a comment please post it rather than just citing a long outdated article (the author has not been an igumen in a long time and is now the newly installed abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery)

Fr David Moser

Long-outdated article? 1996? Either you're showing your age, or we have very different understandings of the term "long outdated"!

I thought it was an interesting article on the traditional understanding on clergy appearance from a canonical source. I have no agenda Father, and frankly suprised by your defensive tone.

FWIW, my GOA parish is served by a fine priest who has short hair and a finely trimmed goatee, and no one judges him - least of all me - on that account.

[Father David Moser]

Long-outdated article? 1996? Either you're showing your age, or we have very different understandings of the term "long outdated"!

I thought it was an interesting article on the traditional understanding on clergy appearance from a canonical source.

A lot has happened in the Russian Church in the past 12 years. While Fr Luke's comments are ageless and not likely to change in 12 years or 12 centuries, the context since their original writing has changed. My age is a matter of public record so I guess you can determine whether or not my comments are symptomatic of showing it or not.

It is an interesting article, however, the root issue still remains - is there question or comment about this topic or is this essay just kind of thrown out here to see how many crochety tired old priests (not to mention defensive priests) will react? By itself the article is out of context - what drew your interest to it, what was your motivation in posting it on this discussion list, do you agree or disagree, ... Give us some context for a reasonable discussion.

Oh, and why the big emphasis on "canonical source". Is this a reference to some non-canonical source of which I am not aware? Fr Luke is a priest of long experience and is also intelligent and well written - however he is not himself a "canonical source" but he does speak as a respected senior clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church (which we assume is the "canonical source" that you reference, although his comments were neither endorsed nor condemned nor judged in any way by the Synod of Bishops) nor could be classed as a "patristic source".

So again, what is the context here? Do you have a question or comment relating to the subject of this article that you posted?

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

Fr. David,

I posted the article for the same reason I posted:

On the Psychology of Schism
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5406

Overcoming Divisions
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3801

The Cessation of Commemoration of Mt. Athos
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3480

among others. I found the article interesting and worthy of discussion in itself. In this case, particularly in the context of American Orthodoxy, where the majority of clergy have chosen to disregard, for whatever reason, the traditional outlook of the Church regarding clerical appearance.

You claim the article is "out of context." In what way? Is there text missing?

My emphasis on canonical sources is more a commentary on how such issues are often perceived. Too many people associate the advocacy of "traditional Orthodoxy" with dissident groups such as the Greek Old Calendarists. Thank God, this slowly changing. It is also intended as a compliment to Orthodox Life, which I consider one of the best Orthodox publications available today.

In Christ,
Chris

[Andreas Moran]

Orthodox clergy should look like Orthodox clergy and not cut their hair and beards. I cringe when I see a photo of some priest or - even worse - a bishop with a tiny bit of stubble on the end of his chin: a pathetic token towards Tradition.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Orthodox clergy should look like Orthodox clergy and not cut their hair and beards. I cringe when I see a photo of some priest or - even worse - a bishop with a tiny bit of stubble on the end of his chin: a pathetic token towards Tradition.

Many of our past bishops in ACROD were clean-shaven. And yet they have been able to lead a people back to Orthodoxy. According to my Metropolitan, beards are "not necessary" for his clergy, and he is a good and holy man in my humble estimation. He does have a neatly trimmed beard. I have always had a beard, but I keep it trimmed because he would chide me (gently) that I was trying to look like a monk even though I am married if I let it grow out.

Appearances matter, but evidently they are not the end-all and be-all of spirituality, they are no guarantee. Appearances can be deceiving. I have known some very traditional-looking priests who were defrocked for very untraditional behavior. Let us remember to look at the "whole picture" and not simply focus on one aspect.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Rick H.]

FWIW, my GOA parish is served by a fine priest who has short hair and a finely trimmed goatee, and no one judges him - least of all me - on that account.



This matches the description of the most Orthodox priest that I have ever met. If you live in the Buffalo area, by any chance, then I know you are blessed with this priest.

But, in the end, as it relates to the big picture as well as judging by appearances, how can there be any conclusion of the whole matter other than this?:




Appearances matter, but evidently they are not the end-all and be-all of spirituality, they are no guarantee. Appearances can be deceiving. I have known some very traditional-looking priests who were defrocked for very untraditional behavior. Let us remember to look at the "whole picture" and not simply focus on one aspect.

[Christophoros]

PRIESTLY ATTIRE

by a priest of a parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

(Orthodox Life, Vol. 41, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1991, pp. 26-29.)

In issue no. 6 of The Russian Pastor, an article by Archpriest Boris Kizenko, "Do not associate yourself with this age," was printed. There he touched upon the question of whether or not priests should wear their cassocks or riasa. I would like to share a few thoughts on this matter.

Very often in the sphere of Church laws and traditions we, for one reason or another, allow ourselves to compromise these laws. In our society today, the reasons and circumstances for such compromises can seem very justifiable. However, the danger lies in the fact that any compromise can become habitual, and the compromised behavior then becomes the norm, giving rise to further compromises and a general degradation of standards. Fr. Boris very aptly describes this progression in his article. At a time when we are perhaps at risk of completely losing the ideal in the realm of priestly attire, it is fitting to review the Church rules and directives concerning the attire of a priest, as well as look at some examples from contemporary life which shed light on this question.

1) The 27th Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council states: "None who is counted with the clergy should dress inappropriately, when in the city, nor when travelling. Each should use the attire which was appointed for clergy members. If someone breaks this rule, may he be deprived of serving for one week."

Here everything is clear. If you do not wish to wear a priest's clothing, do not dare to stand before the altar of God.

2) The great interpreter of Church Canons, Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 14th canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which speaks of the ordination of readers, notes: "He who has put on black attire with the purpose of entering the clergy, cannot remove it, for he has stated his intent of serving God and therefore cannot break his promise to God and ridicule this holy image, as other ridiculers do."

If constant wearing of "black attire" is expected of the first rank of the priesthood, the reader, then all the more does it refer to those who are fully in the rank of the priesthood.

3) In the questioning period of the candidate before the ordination, the candidate to the priesthood, in the presence of his spiritual father makes the following promise: "I promise to wear the clothing appropriate to my priestly rank, not to cut my hair nor my beard... for through such unseemly behavior I risk belittling my rank and tempting believers" (Promise #5).

It is important to note here that, in confirmation of his promise the candidate kisses the Gospel and the Cross and signs his name.

4) The 16th rule for the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad says: "A priest, who is fully supported by his parish, and is given the opportunity not to work at a secular job, should have the appearance of an Orthodox priest, that is, should have long hair, a beard, a riasa, wear a cross of a proper style, and not one he has thought of himself and in his external appearance fully exemplify a true pastor."

We must remember that if the Church canons and laws were not important, the Church would not have written them.

Physician heal thyself. I must admit, that I am a young priest, and at times find it very difficult to follow the above rules. There are times when one's nerves are raw, and I want to go somewhere with my Matushka and children and not stand out, i.e., be "one of the crowd." I am overweight, and in the summer it is hard to bear the heat in my cassock. Yet all this merely exposes my weakness, my lack of desire to constantly be a confessor of my faith; my lack of desire to suffer for Christ even to the most microscopic degree. In my battle with this weakness, I have found inspiration in a few true life accounts, which I would like to share.

The Matushka of one priest, who serves in one large American city, where pagan and Satanic cults are rampant, told me of this incident:

Batiushka always wore either his cassock or riasa with his cross. After his arrival in the city, he grew accustomed to the fact that, when walking along a street, or in stores, some people reacted to him with hatred. Some even hissed at him openly as they walked by, others would actually spit at him. All this Batiushka interpreted as attacks of servants of Satan, upon a priest of Christ. Once it happened that he and Matushka were walking along the sidewalk in the main business district of the city. Suddenly, a woman who looked like a witch jumped out in front of him. She started to scream at him with a frightening voice of a sickly cat, and gestured threateningly with her arms, as if she wanted to scratch out his eyes. Then she immediately disappeared into the crowd. The priest and his wife made the sign of the cross and continued on their way, having grown accustomed to such occurrences. But then Matushka realized something. This time, for some reason, Batiushka was in secular attire. Nothing in his external appearance showed that he was an Orthodox priest. Even his long hair and beard were nothing exceptional in contemporary circumstances.

It is clear that a priest in a spiritual plane is always a priest, even when he is not dressed properly. The evil powers feel this and most probably are pleased with our "compromises."

A certain priest decided to have a photograph of himself made. He put on his coat and hat. For some reason he was embarrassed to be photographed with a cross on. He took the cross off and put it into his left coat pocket. The photograph was taken, developed and printed. To the amazement of both the photographer and the priest, on the photograph there was a huge ray (by shadows one can see that this ray is not from the sun), which pointed to the pocket, where the hidden cross lay. Batiushka asked to have this published after his death.

In a small parish of the Russian Church Abroad, because of the size of the congregation, the rector holds a secular job. He works as a nurse in a local hospital. I was certain that he removes his cassock when he goes to work. However to my surprise, I discovered that this Batiushka works in his cassock, putting a lab coat on top of it. This is regarded with respect by both medical personnel and the patients. Often many patients even request that the "priest-nurse" take care of them.

Concerned about the question, "should and can a priest possible always wear a cassock?", I began asking the grown children of elderly or deceased pastors, whether or not their fathers always wore a cassock. Almost everyone has answered in the affirmative, recalling that they rarely saw their father-priest without a cassock. There are even cases where the children said that they never saw their father without a cassock. This means that the requirement of the Church is possible to fulfill with God's help. One only needs to try.

[Rick H.]

"Do not associate yourself with this age,"



Sometimes expressions, like the above, as well as some like "The religion of the future" provide helpful distinctions that must be made and maintained.

Other times they just get in the way and provide barriers to the Good for all concerned.

[Christophoros]

3) In the questioning period of the candidate before the ordination, the candidate to the priesthood, in the presence of his spiritual father makes the following promise: "I promise to wear the clothing appropriate to my priestly rank, not to cut my hair nor my beard... for through such unseemly behavior I risk belittling my rank and tempting believers" (Promise #5).

Does anyone know if candidates for ordination continue to make this promise, or has it been altered or removed within those American churches that don't commonly have clergy with uncut beards?

[Father David Moser]

3) In the questioning period of the candidate before the ordination, the candidate to the priesthood, in the presence of his spiritual father makes the following promise: "I promise to wear the clothing appropriate to my priestly rank, not to cut my hair nor my beard... for through such unseemly behavior I risk belittling my rank and tempting believers" (Promise #5).

Does anyone know if candidates for ordination continue to make this promise, or has it been altered or removed within those American churches that don't commonly have clergy with uncut beards?

What is your source for this questioning?

I know that as a priest - after my ordination - I signed a promise that I would abide by various standards of behavior and remain loyal to my bishop and his synod and this promise included the provision regarding hair and clothing, however, the bishop realizing that I would have to work and live "in the world" gave a blessing to cut my hair and wear "civvies" as needed for my employment, etc.

But I think that this promisory note is not a part of the requirements of the priesthood and is simply something that is required by the local synod or ruling bishop and thus may not be anything even remotely traditional in all jurisdictions.

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

What is your source for this questioning?


Fr David Moser


It is quoted in the second article I posted from Orthodox Life, entitled "Priestly Attire." It's a few posts back.

[Father David Moser]

It is quoted in the second article I posted from Orthodox Life, entitled "Priestly Attire." It's a few posts back.

Yes, I see it now. As I mentioned before such details are most often specific to the diocesan bishop (yes, within ROCOR). Although I did sign an promise to maintain a certain standard of moral behavior and of loyalty and obedience to my bishop, my ordination did not involve the ritual described (and the bishop who ordained me could never be said to be liberal or innovationist or anything but the most traditional). The priest who writes this article describes his own experience. If one were to go to the quote in the article from the "Guidelines for clergy"
4) The 16th rule for the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad says: "A priest, who is fully supported by his parish, and is given the opportunity not to work at a secular job, should have the appearance of an Orthodox priest, that is, should have long hair, a beard, a riasa, wear a cross of a proper style, and not one he has thought of himself and in his external appearance fully exemplify a true pastor." we see the very important caveat at the outset that this only applies to those who are not working a "secular job". This indicates to us that the priestly attire is not an absolute rule but rather an expectation or standard by which (ROCOR) clergy evaluate themselves and their behavior. One will not find all clergy all the time in ROCOR in podriasnik and riassa but rather in clothing appropriate to their task. When possible, I do in fact wear the podriasnik, however, there are many times when I do not. In fact there is a photo (actually more than one if you count family pix) available on the internet showing me as a priest in overalls, a t-shirt and baseball cap (but then I was in the midst of a construction project for the Church). The point of this guideline is not to prescribe a certain mandatory uniform, but rather to proscribe inappropriate clothing. One must use common sense here. Even to go to the grocery in many cases it is not appropriate to wear a podriasnik but rather to dress modestly and unremarkably.

Fr David Moser

[S. Rey]

If I may express my humble opinion on the matter, I would just like to say that men, at the very least in Mediterranean cultures, have always had beard (The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans at time, etc.). Since the original Christian faith developped in the Mediterranean context, it has kept a lot of these usages, and no one has even ever spoken about beards until the 19th century, because it was simply the custom. Once the Church met with the West (and its cultural arrogance), beards came to be regarded, in the Orthodox world as elsewhere in the world, Asia for instance, as 'primitive' and 'caveman-like', an expression sadly addressed to me several times because I have a small beard (and I am not even in the holy orders!). Beards, like the calendar, and other issues, have become issues after contact with the West and its culture, and so have become cultural and, in a sense, political symbols. On this I will say no more.

In Christ.

[Christophoros]

An interesting blog entry from the The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas on beards in early 20th century American Orthodoxy:

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/12/to-shave-or-not-to-shave/

[Kosta]

Orthodox priests should keep their beards and stop making themselves look like roman priests with roman collars. Unfortunately western culture is more powerful than our tradition. sigh.

[Andreas Moran]

If I may express my humble opinion on the matter, I would just like to say that men, at the very least in Mediterranean cultures, have always had beard (The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans at time, etc.). Since the original Christian faith developped in the Mediterranean context, it has kept a lot of these usages, and no one has even ever spoken about beards until the 19th century, because it was simply the custom. Once the Church met with the West (and its cultural arrogance), beards came to be regarded, in the Orthodox world as elsewhere in the world, Asia for instance, as 'primitive' and 'caveman-like', an expression sadly addressed to me several times because I have a small beard (and I am not even in the holy orders!). Beards, like the calendar, and other issues, have become issues after contact with the West and its culture, and so have become cultural and, in a sense, political symbols. On this I will say no more.

In Christ.

Peter the Great of Russia is an example of this. For many Russians today, the rot set in in that country with than man's reign.

[Anna Stickles]

Orthodox priests should keep their beards and stop making themselves look like roman priests with roman collars. Unfortunately western culture is more powerful than our tradition. sigh.

Kosta, Maybe there should be some effort to differentiate tradition from Tradition? Cultural traditions are one thing and I see no reason why one culture's traditions should be preferred over another. Tradition - All those things having to do with eternity, our salvation and our relationship with God are something else. Certainly beards has to do with the former not the latter.

[Anna Stickles]

Maybe I can expand a little further. We understand that the domination of one person by another is not a true expression of Christian love, but rather that God made us for freedom in him - and nowhere do you see this emphasized and portrayed as fully as in Orthodoxy.

Therefore as Orthodoxy tries to find it's place in western culture, the Orthodox, if they want to truly be a witness of Orthodoxy, cannot take the approach of one cultures domination by another. There has to be a sensitivity and love shown to the already established traditions here as long as they don't conflict with Tradition.

There is a fine line here. On the one hand beards may be common in Orthodox but not Roman priests - and this is simply a matter of cultural tradition. And yet on the other hand we certainly see in our modern American culture a tendency for dress to become an expression of our ego, and so to combat this guidelines for humble and appropriate dress and appearance are probably good.

[Christophoros]

Kosta, Maybe there should be some effort to differentiate tradition from Tradition? Cultural traditions are one thing and I see no reason why one culture's traditions should be preferred over another. Tradition - All those things having to do with eternity, our salvation and our relationship with God are something else. Certainly beards has to do with the former not the latter.

The whole notion of looking at Orthodoxy as a collection and "traditions" and "Traditions", and imagining that we have the grace-filled insight to differentiate between the two and cast aside the things that aren't convenient for us, is pure renovationism.

[Paul Cowan]

The whole notion of looking at Orthodoxy as a collection and "traditions" and "Traditions", and imagining that we have the grace-filled insight to differentiate between the two and cast aside the things that aren't convenient for us, is pure renovationism.

So Christophoros,

Are you saying if I shave my beard I risk my salvation because it is (t)radition or (T)radition?

[Christophoros]

So Christophoros,

Are you saying if I shave my beard I risk my salvation because it is (t)radition or (T)radition?

Not at all. I simply don't believe we should divide the beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy into those things which save, and those which don't. Is it an Orthodox dogma to make the sign of the cross? How about to prostrate? How about kissing the right hand of a priest? If these things do not save, then why do them? We do them because they are part of the totality of the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ.

If we feel free to pick and choose which elements of Orthodoxy to practice (ala "cafeteria Christianity"), then we are more renovationist or Protestant than we are Orthodox in mindset.

[Grace Singh]

personally, i admire the beards of Orthodox clergy. they look dignified and appropriate, somehow.

regarding traditions, it is important to not do away with certain traditions simply because these traditions may seem "odd" or quaint to the surrounding, modern culture. the Church is supposed to transform and inform the world for Christ, rather than the world suggesting or dictating what traditions and beliefs the Church holds. the world will continue "moving on". that does not mean that the Orthodox Church should move with it at the expense of Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.

[Alice]

I find this subject one that could possibly invite the type of fundamentalism of outward appearances that has nothing to do with the soul...this could tempt those persons who are so inclined to take it past clergy beards vs. no beards, to which *type* of clergy beard is more Orthodox.--a short one, a medium one, a long one, a trimmed one, a clean one, a scraggly one, etc.!!!! *wink* (and I have seen each category of beard on clergy at one time or another!!) :-)

In the case of married clergy, not only do they have societal, cultural and Orthodox sensibilites to worry about, but perhaps they also need to worry about and be sensitive to their wive's preferences? Just a thought....

[Grace Singh]

I find this subject one that could possibly invite the type of fundamentalism of outward appearances that has nothing to do with the soul...this could tempt those persons who are so inclined to take it past clergy beards vs. no beards, to which *type* of clergy beard is more Orthodox.--a short one, a medium one, a long one, a trimmed one, a clean one, a scraggly one, etc.!!!!

while the potential is certainly there, as is the possibility of wrongly summing up a man's piety and Godliness by his beard length, beards for clergy are still a respected and meaningful tradition.

from the pov of Orthodoxy, Tradition interprets Scripture, and is considered holy. it is true that a Christian woman can be a pious and sincere Christian woman if she wears posh jewelery, short skirts, flashy shoes, and eye-catching make-up. but as a Christian woman, *should* she be wearing these things? or chosing to? do they point to modesty, humility, and a disregard for the things of the flesh, or in the opposite direction?

not saying it's a perfect analogy, but similar arguments could be made in this case. as a reflection of their respect for Tradition, is it better for Orthodox clergy to have a beard, or not?

[Father David Moser]

In the case of married clergy, not only do they have societal, cultural and Orthodox sensibilites to worry about, but perhaps they also need to worry about and be sensitive to their wive's preferences? Just a thought....

The wife is already "on board" as she has to be a part of the decision for ordination. She gets "her say" prior to the ordination, after that, she's already agreed.

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

All the pious traditions of Orthodoxy can bbe vehicles of grace, if course with vastly different gradations. When one begins discarding various traditions through incrementally dismantling them, it becomes a domino effect, it starts with the traditions of the little 't' and ends up destroying the bigger ones bit by bit. Some heirarchs believe fasting needs to be dismantled and we see thru the study of the roman church when it is incrementally abolished. First it was made lax by replacing fasting with a custom of not eating meat only, then it was shortened to only include ash wednesday and Good Friday, then it was repackaged again that those days should be a custom of eating fish and not a day of abstinence, and as of late poultry has been added to the cuisine since the rules is to abstain from beef specifically and not neccearily meat.

In Orthodoxy here in America we see this, as more and more newly formed parishes are granted eikonomia so their churches dont have to face east. Originally this exception to the rule was only applied to urban areas now its based upon economic considerations, any former house of worship can be converted as long as the price is right. In GOARCH churches in NY all have musical organs, and no first generation greek is aware that musical instruments are not the norm for Orthodox churches. Greek-americans think the reason why the churches of Greece lack organs is because their too poor to afford them. They believe every jurisdiction in america uses organs, because theyve been told it enhances worship and the lack of musical instruments on old countries has nothing to do with Orthodox tradition or praxis or anything. Same with the sacrament of penance, its considered a tradition with the small 't' and not an essential sacrament. The laity thinks its to intrusive into their lives and the clergy are afraid they'll get sued if their spiritual advice is taken by the layman to be a way to control their personal lives.
It is this concept of dong away with everything increment by increment over many decades till we are striped barren of our ethos.

[Alice]

I am in agreement with you, Kosta, about confession. Fortunately, my GO parish has a priest who is very forthright about the importance of confession. So, I think that maybe with this newer generation of priests, we are seeing a change back to the traditional--or so I hope. (Lest, however, we be too judgemental, and to be fair, in Athens also, the newer generation of priests is trying slowly to get the masses who come to church to realize again its importance in the spiritual life. )
He has also taught us to do metanoies before receiving Holy Communion, full prostrations at St. Ephraim prayer during Lent, etc...some have left because they find him 'too strict' and are uncomfortable with the real ethos of Orthodox worship, but this has not detered him one bit.

As for music-- living, for the past two years, with one foot in Athens and another in NY, I don't think that it is something all that important. The hymns are the same, whether sung with an organ by a choir, by a psalti in Byzantine chant, or by psaltes in choral chant, a male psalti or a female one...I have heard all these.

Some psaltes are wonderful to listen to, others not (to say the least), and some choirs are wonderful to listen to, and others not, some psaltes sound more 'byzantine' than others, etc....the important thing is giving our best and most beautiful talent unto God for a beautiful worshipping experience.

If we make this out to be so important, then what is to be said of the beauty of the present Russian Orthodox musical tradition? Is it not Orthodox because it is not a Byzantine/Middle Eastern style chant? In no Greek church anywhere have I heard music applied in a disrespectful way (rock; rap; bouzouki; etc.) The organ is a beautiful Western instrument, and the West, despite being 'heteredox', has historically created some of the most spiritually touching music devoted to God. Is it possible to not be moved by Handel's Messiah, for instance?

Music is organic and it is also subjective.

If one knows not if he is in Heaven or on Earth, then, despite the 'style' music, the grace of the Holy Spirit is touching us.. .and whether we like it or not, there are many people who will never feel that way with Byzantine style chant.

Wishing you a most blessed remainder of Great and Holy Sarakosti,
Alice

[Jason Schrik]

The Rudder-

BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS MUST BE BEARDED
Note that the present Canon censures the priests of the Latins who shave off their moustache and their beard and who look like very young men and handsome bridegrooms and have the face of women. For God forbids men of the laity in general to shave their beard, by saying: ““You shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin”” (Leviticus 19:27). But He specially forbids those in Holy Orders to shave their beard, by saying to Moses to tell the sons of Aaron, or, in other words, the priests, not to shave the skin of their bearded chin (Leviticus 21:5, Not only did He forbid this in words, but He even appeared to Daniel with whiskers and beard as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:9); and the Son of God wore a beard while he was alive in the flesh. And our Forefathers and Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles all wore beards, as is plainly evident from the most ancient pictures of them wherein they are painted with beards. But, more to the point, even the saints in Italy, like St. Ambrose, the father of monks Benedict, Gregory Dialogus, and the rest, all had beards, as they appear in their pictures painted in the church of St. Mark in Venice.
Why, even the judgment of right reason decides the shaving of the beard to be improper. For the beard is the difference which in respect of appearance distinguishes a woman from a man. That is why a certain philosopher when asked why he grew a beard and whiskers, replied that as often as he stroked his beard and whiskers he felt that he was a man, and not a woman. Those men who shave their beard are not possessors of a manly face, but of a womanly face. Hence it was that Epiphanios blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard, which is the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman.

BEARDS ARE THE CORRECT APPEARANCE FOR A CHRISTIAN MAN
The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, Chapter 3 command that no one shall destroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man into one that is unnatural. “For,” says he, “God the Creator made this to be becoming to women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.” The innovation of shaving the beard ensued in the Roman Church a little before Leo IX. Gregory VII even resorted to force in order to make bishops and clerics shave off their beard. What a most ugly and most disgusting sight it is to see the successor of St. Peter close-shaven, as the Greeks say, like a “fine bridegroom,” with this difference, however, that he wears a stole and a pallium, and sits in the chief seat among a large number of other men like him in a council called the college of cardinals, while he himself is styled the Pope. Yet bearded Popes did not become extinct after insane Gregory, a witness to this fact being Pope Gelasius growing a beard, as is stated in his biography. See the Dodecabiblus of Dositheos, pages 776-8. Meletios the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states that the king arrested a certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his lascivious acts and one half of his beard was shaven off as a mark of dishonor. According to another authority, in other temples too there were princes, even on the clerical list, who had a beard, as in Leipzig they are to be seen painted after Martin Luther in the church called St. Paul’s and that called St. Thomas’s. I saw the same things also in Bardislabia.

[Father David Moser]

The exact reference to the Rudder wasn't cited so I can't be more exact myself, but it would appear that the above comments are not part of the Rudder (the compilation of the canons) but rather the commentary (most likely) of Apostolos Makrakis who put together this collection and whose own opinions appear as commentary on the canons.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The exact reference to the Rudder wasn't cited so I can't be more exact myself, but it would appear that the above comments are not part of the Rudder (the compilation of the canons) but rather the commentary (most likely) of Apostolos Makrakis who put together this collection and whose own opinions appear as commentary on the canons.

Fr David Moser

The Rudder was originally compiled and commented upon by St Nikodemos the Agiorite. However the edition that Fr David refers to and that is commonly available in an English translation was further commented upon by Apostolos Makrakis. It's a shame then that this edition doesn't clearly differentiate between the two- although at times the more in depth comments and Patristic analysis is by St Nikodemus I think.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Best not to read it in any case.... unless one particularly has a blessing from a bishop to do so (e.g. a priest, laypeople in specific circumstances). The canons are pastoral guides, to be applied in obedience. Extracted from this relationship, they are temptations.

[Herman Blaydoe]

So, does this mean that native Americans who don't generally have facial to begin with are barred from being clergy?

Just askin'

Herman the part Choctaw Pooh (but who does have a hairy face)

[Ryan]

The injunction seems to be more against the act of shaving than against beardlessness per se. Obviously people who are not physically capable of growing beards won't be violating this canon.

[Aidan Kimel]

Alas, while I can grow a moustache (given sufficient time), I am unable to grow a decent beard, thanks to genetics. My father complained about his inability to grow a beard. My sons complain about this inability. Are we cursed? Is it a symptom of the Western original sin? ;)

[Jason Schrik]

The Rudder-

BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS MUST BE BEARDED
Note that the present Canon censures the priests of the Latins who shave off their moustache and their beard and who look like very young men and handsome bridegrooms and have the face of women. For God forbids men of the laity in general to shave their beard, by saying: ““You shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin”” (Leviticus 19:27). But He specially forbids those in Holy Orders to shave their beard, by saying to Moses to tell the sons of Aaron, or, in other words, the priests, not to shave the skin of their bearded chin (Leviticus 21:5, Not only did He forbid this in words, but He even appeared to Daniel with whiskers and beard as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:9); and the Son of God wore a beard while he was alive in the flesh. And our Forefathers and Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles all wore beards, as is plainly evident from the most ancient pictures of them wherein they are painted with beards. But, more to the point, even the saints in Italy, like St. Ambrose, the father of monks Benedict, Gregory Dialogus, and the rest, all had beards, as they appear in their pictures painted in the church of St. Mark in Venice.
Why, even the judgment of right reason decides the shaving of the beard to be improper. For the beard is the difference which in respect of appearance distinguishes a woman from a man. That is why a certain philosopher when asked why he grew a beard and whiskers, replied that as often as he stroked his beard and whiskers he felt that he was a man, and not a woman. Those men who shave their beard are not possessors of a manly face, but of a womanly face. Hence it was that Epiphanios blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard, which is the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman.

BEARDS ARE THE CORRECT APPEARANCE FOR A CHRISTIAN MAN
The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, Chapter 3 command that no one shall destroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man into one that is unnatural. “For,” says he, “God the Creator made this to be becoming to women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.” The innovation of shaving the beard ensued in the Roman Church a little before Leo IX. Gregory VII even resorted to force in order to make bishops and clerics shave off their beard. What a most ugly and most disgusting sight it is to see the successor of St. Peter close-shaven, as the Greeks say, like a “fine bridegroom,” with this difference, however, that he wears a stole and a pallium, and sits in the chief seat among a large number of other men like him in a council called the college of cardinals, while he himself is styled the Pope. Yet bearded Popes did not become extinct after insane Gregory, a witness to this fact being Pope Gelasius growing a beard, as is stated in his biography. See the Dodecabiblus of Dositheos, pages 776-8. Meletios the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states that the king arrested a certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his lascivious acts and one half of his beard was shaven off as a mark of dishonor. According to another authority, in other temples too there were princes, even on the clerical list, who had a beard, as in Leipzig they are to be seen painted after Martin Luther in the church called St. Paul’s and that called St. Thomas’s. I saw the same things also in Bardislabia.

these actually come from page 785 of the electronic version. Here is the beginning of "the commentary" that you suppose that it is.

That quote is part of the footnotes of an ecumenical council! Not commentary

FOOTNOTES TO THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL
FIFTH-SIXTH OR SIXTH SYNOD 1. PROOF THAT THIS IS A TRUE ECUMENICAL SYNOD
For many reasons, the present Synod is called and is an Ecumenical Synod:
1. Because in the salutatory address that it makes to Justinian, as well as in its third Canon, it labels itself Ecumenical.
2. Because the Seventh Ecumenical Synod in its Act 8 in its first Canon also calls it an Ecumenical Synod. In addition, Adrian I, the Pope of Rome, in his letter to Tarasius, recorded in Act 2 of the 7th Ecumenical Synod (page 748 of the Collection of the Synods), counts this among the Ecumenical Synods.
3. ECUMENICAL IN CHARACTER
Because in its Canons it lays down legislation and pronounces decrees relating, not to any one part of the inhabited earth, but to the whole inhabited portion of the globe, to both Eastern and Western churches; and it specifically refers to Rome, and to Africa, and to Armenia, to the provinces in Barbary – as appears in Canons XII, XIII XVIII, XXIX, XXXV, and XXXVI. It would be ridiculous, of course, for it to lay down legislation for so many and so widely distributed provinces, and especially to improve upon Canons of many local and regional Synods and Synods, were it not in reality an Ecumenical Synod, and had it not in reality the dignity and office of an Ecumenical Synod. As concerning this see the Footnote to its Canon II.
4. ALL PATRIARCHS INCLUDING POPE OF ROME ATTENDED
Because all of the four Patriarchs of the inhabited earth attended it, and so did the Pope of Rome through his legates (or lieutenants, or proxies, or deputies); and the churches everywhere on the face of the earth recognized it and accepted it – a fact which serves as an essential mark of identification and a constitutive characteristic, or constituent feature of Ecumenical Synods.

[Father David Moser]

these actually come from page 785 of the electronic version. Here is the beginning of "the commentary" that you suppose that it is.

That quote is part of the footnotes of an ecumenical council! Not commentary

The footnotes are not part of the text of the canons of the councils at all but the explanatory comments of one of the editors along the way - perhaps Agapius and Nicodemus (the orginal compilers), or the original redactor Dorotheus, or perhaps one of the members of the Patriarchal oversight committee, or perhaps the translator D. Cummings. In any case these footnotes are not part of the text of the canons of the council, in fact they are footnotes explaining the introductory remarks to the section which describe the council, not footnotes on an actual canon. So yes, they are, at best, "commentary" and commentary from an unknown source which cannot be evaluated (although I will grant that they are likely not the comments of A. Makrakis, but of some lesser figure). Thus these comments are not authoritative proclamations of an ecumenical council and do not bear any ecclesiastical weight whatsoever other than that given them by one's own local ruling bishop.

I did, in fact scan the entire 102 canons of the Quinisext council (pp287-412 in the printed version) which the above post seems to indicate is the source of these footnotes. I did not notice the comments concerning beards - but then it was a very quick scan. It would be helpful to specify to which of the 102 canons of the Quinisext council these comments refer.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

I did, in fact scan the entire 102 canons of the Quinisext council (pp287-412 in the printed version) which the above post seems to indicate is the source of these footnotes. I did not notice the comments concerning beards - but then it was a very quick scan.

I did a search on the CCEL site. "Beard" does not appear in any of the canons (not just the 102 from Trullo, but all of those included in Schaff's Seven Ecumenical Councils). "Shave" only appears in canon 17 of Grangra, which pronounces anathema on women who shave their heads out of pretended reverence.

I only found two canons of Trullo that relate to hair - canon 42, which deals with those who call themselves eremites but go about the cities, and canon 21, which talks about deposed clerics. The translation in Schaff's work renders canon 21 thusly:



Those who have become guilty of crimes against the canons, and on this account subject to complete and perpetual deposition, are degraded to the condition of layman. If, however, keeping conversion continually before their eyes, they willingly deplore the sin on account of which they fell from grace, and made themselves aliens therefrom, they may still cut their hair after the manner of clerics. But if they are not willing to submit themselves to this canon, they must wear their hair as laymen, as being those who have preferred the communion of the world to the celestial life.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXI.
Whoever is already deposed and reduced to the lay estate, if he shall repent, let him continue deposed but be shorn. But if otherwise, he must let his hair grow.


Obviously, this won't include the footnotes/commentary in the Rudder, but I don't see anything about beards in the canons themselves - this is as close as it seems to get.

On a related note, the following statement from Jason's quote from the Rudder kind of confuses me:


The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, Chapter 3 command that no one shall destroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man into one that is unnatural. “For,” says he, “God the Creator made this to be becoming to women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.”

Now, I had understood the "Injunctions of the Apostles" to be synonymous with the Didache (as appears to be stated in the interpretation of apostolic canon #85 in the Rudder). But the Didache doesn't have multiple books, and chapter 3 says nothing about beards in the translations I've read (nor does any other chapter in the Didache, for that matter). So I'm not sure what that statement is really referring to.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Stickles]

Whoops. Missed one. Canon 96 of Trullo states:


Those who by baptism have put on Christ have professed that they will copy his manner of life which he led in the flesh. Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls, we take in hand to cure paternally with a suitable punishment: training them and teaching them to live soberly, in order that having laid aside the deceit and vanity of material things, they may give their minds continually to a life which is blessed and free from mischief, and have their conversation in fear, pure, [and holy]; and thus come as near as possible to God through their purity of life; and adorn the inner man rather than the outer, and that with virtues, and good and blameless manners, so that they leave in themselves no remains of the left-handedness of the adversary. But if any shall act contrary to the present canon let him be cut off.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XCVI.

Whoever twist up their hair into artistic plaits for the destruction of the beholders are to be cut off.

Also, according to OrthodoxInfo's page on Concerning the Tradition of Long Hair and Beards (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx), this is the canon which the previously-quoted commentary refers to; that page ascribes the commentary to St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, and says it comes from pp 403-405 of the Rudder.

In Christ,
Michael