Please, someone: explain the custom among many Orthodox priests and monastics, that one of wearing long hair/"ponytails" and long, stringy, unkempt beards. For example, as Fr. Seraphim Rose did...may his memory be eternal.

(P.S.: this is an honest question, not an attempt of me to attack anyone or start a controversy).

Personally, I think that for priests in the community to look like unkempt hippies is nothing more than a pretense and is vain-glorious. Hair doesn't make the man - humility and grace do. I don't really care what monks do.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx



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," [Webmaster note: he then cites the Slavonic word using a special font. Consult the original article if needed.], 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 [Gr.] thrix (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." [2]

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" [3] (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." [!] [4]

Igumen Luke
Endnotes

* Webmaster note: In the original article footnotes 2 and 3 were reversed in the text and footnotes.

1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 354.

2) The Rudder, trans. by D. Cummings, p. 403.

3) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455

4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98.

From Orthodox Life, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Sept-Oct 1995), pp. 41-43.
+ + +
Uncut Hair and Beards of the Clergy

You often state that clergy must not cut their hair and beards. There are church canons to support this and certainly it is part of church tradition. But you also know that St. Paul says that men should not have long hair and that certain church canons even allow for a monk with hair that is too long to cut it, as well as to cut his hair when he is away from the monastery. I would like your guidance on this apparent contradiction in tradition. (Fr. J.K., MA)

Your comments are intelligently stated and do not, as is often the case, seek to dispense with a difficult discipline—the uncut hair and beard of Orthodox clergy—by posing false contradictions in practice. The tradition of maintaining uncut hair and beard among the monastic and married clergy no doubt traces back to the ascetics of the desert. Just as monastic practice has influenced parish worship, so monastic dress and grooming have played an observable role in establishing the standard for clerical dress among married Priests. Except among "Westernized" Orthodox, with their anti-monastic bias, this influence by the barometer of spiritual life, the monastic estate, on the so-called "secular" clergy has always been thought positive.

Since an ascetic monastic foregoes the cutting of his hair and beard in order to avoid vanity, this custom has a practical purpose. Thus, it is obvious that a monastic would also avoid looking effeminate or styling his hair. It is for this reason that, if his hair gets too long, such that it resembles that of a woman, a monastic may ask his superior to cut it. When he goes out into the world, too, he should, in such circumstances, trim his hair and keep it tied up in back, as is the custom in the Greek and some Slavic Churches. This is in keeping with the spirit of St. Paul's admonition against men having long hair like that of women, when this admonition is read in context.

What we must understand, here, is that the cutting of hair in all of these instances means nothing more than trimming off hair that falls below the middle of the back. We are not talking about the modern haircut, which is, in fact, the equivalent of the desecration of the head that led to Samson's loss of strength and power. Clergymen are, therefore, unjustified in cutting their hair in the modern style, which is almost unknown in Christian history, until recent centuries. With regard to shaving, the Old Testament, the Church Fathers, and the Canons forbid a clergyman to cut his beard. One of the observations made by the Orthodox against the Popes during the union councils (and repeated by a number of Orthodox Fathers in modern times) was that, as they began to deviate from the Apostolic Faith, they also, oddly enough, began to shave off their beards. Moreover, not only should clergymen not shave, according to various Church authorities, but many holy men, such as St. Kosmas Aitolos, hold that laymen should let their beards, or least a moustache, grow naturally.

All of this does not, of course, mean that an Orthodox clergyman should not be clean and well groomed. The Canons allow for the trimming of the moustache (primarily for the purpose of insuring care in taking Holy Communion), and certainly by economy a Priest can trim his beard slightly, if he has to hold a secular job. Long hair should also be tied up in back or tucked under the collar, for which reason it rarely presents a problem for a working Priest who truly wishes to abide by canonical exactitude. (And by Priest, here, we mean, of course, both the Presbyter and the Deacon.) Nor would we argue that a beard and uncut hair are the sure signs of a good Priest. They are, as Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna always tells us, no more or less important to a Priest than "feathers are to a bird."

Finally, in anticipation of those who oppose the canonical disciplines placed on Orthodox clergy, let us acknowledge that some monks, in the history of the Church, maintained a tonsure which involved cutting hair from the top of the head. This was one of many customs which did not last, and is not an argument against the living tradition of the Church as it has survived today, which assigns to monastics and "secular" clergy alike the discipline of leaving the hair and beard uncut, This discipline, combined with adherence to the canonical dress of the clergy (in Church, on the street, and at home), is a powerful deterrent against improper behavior on the part of Priests, who should be moral exemplars for the people, and provides a vivid witness of the peculiar nature to the people of God, the Christians.
St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance

When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, he ordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does this say of your "traditional" dress? (J.K., NJ)

We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject, and it by no means "orders" clergy in America under his jurisdiction to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known that the late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of this directive. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinction between the "essentials" and "accidentals" of the Faith, allowing for a number of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinction of the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein "externals" (matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparable from an "internal" (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embraced this principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practical accommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint's memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 19-21.
+ + +
St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite's Comments on Canon 96 of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod

Those too incur the excommunication of this Canon, according to Zonaras, who do not put a razor to their head at all, nor cut the hair of their head, but let it grow long enough to reach to the belt like that of women, and those who bleach their hair so as to make it blond or golden, or who twist it up and tie it on spills in order to make it curly; or who put wigs or “rats” on their head. This excommunication is incurred also by those who shave off their beard in order to make their face smooth and handsome after such treatment, and not to have it curly, or in order to appear at all times like beardless young men; and those who singe the hair of their beard with a red-hot tile so as to remove any that is longer than the rest, or more crooked; or who use tweezers to pluck out the superfluous hairs on their face, in order to become tender and appear handsome; or who dye their beard, in order not to appear to be old men. This same excommunication is incurred also by those women who use rouge and paint on their face, in order to look pretty, and in this way to attract men beholding them to their Satanic love. Oh, and how the miserable women have the hardihood to dishonor the image which God gave them with their wicked beautifications! Ah! how is God to recognize them and tell whether they are His own creatures and images, at a time when they are wearing another face which is devilish, and another image, which is that of Satan? Hence it is that St. Gregory the Theologian says the following in his epic verses:

“Build yourselves not towers of spurious tresses on your head, women,
While petting soft necks of rocks invisible;
Nor apply shameful paint to forms of God’s,
So as to be wearing masks, and not faces.
Lest God requite you for such things when He has come to resent them.
Who? Whence is the Creator? Avaunt, get thee away from me, strange female!
I did not paint thee a bitch, but created an image of myself.
How is it that I have an idol, a specter instead of a friend?”

And the poor wretches do not know that by what they are doing they are managing only to make themselves like that hag and whore called Jezebel (II Kings 9:30), and are themselves becoming new and second Jezebels, because she too used to paint her face in order to please the eyes of men, just as is written: “And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of him; and she painted her face, and attired her head, and peeped through the window” (ibid.). So all men and all women who do such things are all excommunicated by the present Ecumenical Council. And is these things are forbidden to be done by the laity in general, how much more they are forbidden to clerics and those in holy orders, who ought by their speech and by their conduct, and by the outward decency and plainness of their garments, and of their hair, and of their beard, to teach the laity not to be body-lovers and exquisites, but soul-lovers and virtue- lovers. 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: “Ye shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin” (Lev. 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 (Lev. 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 (Dan. 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 Epiphanius blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard, which is the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman. The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, ch.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. Oh, and 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 Dositheus, pp. 776-8. Meletius the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states that a certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his lascivious acts was arrested by the king 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 sacerdotal 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.

From The Rudder, pp. 403-405.


Alexandr

To look like a eunuch requires far more primping and styling, and thus is far more vain-glorious than the natural appearance of a man. I do agree though, that it is humility and grace that make the priest. But he should still look like a priest, not an insurance salesman.

Alexandr

I have to laugh, though. Just this past weekend, I accompanied my office manager for my yearly trip to the mall to buy Christmas presents, something no-one with a Y chromosome should ever attempt! As I was coming around the corner near the Food Court, a little boy of maybe three or four came barreling around the corner and ran smack-dab into my knees, bouncing backwards and landing on his bottom. He looked up at me, his eyes became as big as half dollars and he started screaming "A Viking, A Viking"! as he ran back to his Mom. My Office Manager is still calling me Knute. Women!

Alexandr

I'm biting my tongue hard. I'm sorry, but isn't that a pretty judgemental and uncharitable statement? To accuse priests of vainglory and then attempt to give them your wisdom on what constitutes true humility in the same sentence? The last sentence about monks came across as rather flippant and condescending as well.

DMD,

Please forgive me for my last post. I shouldn't have responded based on my first reaction to what you wrote. If I would have just waited a little while, I wouldn't have written what I did.

A few years ago found me at a conference in Amsterdam. I was sitting at an outdoor cafe table when a boy of similar age in a car at the light excitedly pointed at my ever-present western hat calling, "cowboy, mama! Cowboy!"



And my condolences on the shopping; I still have to face mine . . .

Oh, and as for beards, I'm a full 20 years from the last time mine came off . . . although I keep it far shorter for my wife than I'd do on my own .. . .

hawk

Slavipodvizhnik,
Glory be to Jesus Christ!
Has the Orthodox Church ever given a defense and/or explanation of the practice of clergy and monastics wearing head coverings during prayer?-Vespers or Divine Liturgy, for example-as, St. Paul says a man shames his head if he covers it during prayer. What does the Orthodox Church teach about this passage and it's practice which seems to contradict it?

Thank You!

In the Orthodox view, priests and bishops do not cover their head, for to "cover" is to hide in shame. Rather priestly headgear is meant to glorify, a kingly crown in the case of a mitre, or a symbol of authority in the case of a scufia. Within St. John's Revelation, we hear of many men wearing crowns. Just as in the Old Testament, where the high priest was mitred, so we see the practice continue in the Church.And there are very specific rules as to when the headcovering is worn and when it is removed during the Divine Services.

To me, as someone raised in the west, a man in a white collar with shiny shoes and short hair looks more like what I have been culturally trained to expect a priest to look like. Being Russian Catholic and in ROCOR hasn't changed that.

Also worth noting is that Roman priests have something of an "indelible mark" that most Orthodox priests don't have. I can spot a Roman priest at 50 paces, even in civvies. If I see a man with long hair and a beard in civvies (i.e. not the Riassa), I assume he's going to ask me for money or (possibly) try to interest me in some curious plant products.

Therefore I don't have any issue with Orthodox clergy in the west looking like most priests do in the west, and by and large I find that clothes have little connection to theological outlook.

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

It's a cultural thing as well. In my neck of the woods, a man who is clean shaven, short haired and meticulously groomed is viewed as, for lack of a better word, effeminate. Not somebody you'd want to share a foxhole with, if you catch my drift. And I have definitely noticed that clean shaven men tend to sing tenor. Now I could offer a medical opinion on that, but let's just say that God gave us secondary sexual characteristics for a reason, and that it is "unnatural" to attempt to disguise them.
As I started out saying, in the circles I travel in, real men have beards, drink beer, eat red meat and sing bass.

"There are two kinds of people in this world that go around beardless — boys and women — and I am neither one." -Old Russian saying



Alexandr

Within the gay subculture (?) lurks yet another subculture; and that is the one of the so-called "bears." These are gay men who are ULTRA: masculine, hirsute, muscular; who sing bass, drink lotsa beer and eat lotsa red meat and are often heavily and elaborately tattooed. And they like each other a lot and have a lot of other gay admirers.

And IMO reality is sometimes so weird and strange that it's almost beyond belief.

Allez comprendre...

And these so called "bears" would last about 30 seconds in any of the local watering holes here's about. Masculinity cannot be faked.

Stereotype central around here. ^^ I'm a clean shaven bass, who prefers beer over wine, like going to my local Korean BBQ for some clotted blood soup and grilled intestines. I can, however, sing tenor on occasion.

No offense taken as my statement was indeed too broad. The bottom line is that is it not for us to judge why one priest is bearded and another is not. My personal belief is that the rural 19th century Russian look is a barrier to effective ministry that has to be overcome, but that is just my opinion. Again, it is the character of the man that makes the priest, not his sartorial style of choice.

Wow....Which group of North American males portrays our cultural stereotype of 'masculinity' better than do our professional athletes? Most NFL and NHL players are clean-shaven and short-haired....Making a claim about 'tenor' voices and gay stereotypes in their presence would hardly be a good idea! (I know there are many exceptions with long hair, such as Troy Polomahu of the Steelers and others or beards like Ryan Fitzpatrick of the Bills, but I suspect they would join in the fray in support of their clean shaven peers!

I believe Metropolitan Jonah had some rather caustic words for secular priests who like to wander around their parishes looking like 19th century Russian hermits.

Will you forgive me if I tell you that sometimes you guys make me chuckle? How about discussing whether a "real" priest's wife should wear long skirts, covered shoulders and arms and a head covering all the time? Would that seem a little foolish to you? Well perhaps that's how this discussion appears to this priest's wife...

I would suggest that a Pani should dress modestly in a manner that does not cause either scandal or gossip. And that would be determined by the community in which she lives.

I would agree with you, Stuart, although having the tastes of the parishioners determine the "appropriate" wardrobe choices of the Pani seems a little harsh.

A matushka should dress the same as any other modest woman. In public, she should be covered, including her hair. Other than that, I am not aware of any restrictions. What she wears in the privacy of her time spent with her husband is her own concern. For those desirous of learning how a modest woman dresses, may I recommend the Domostroi. http://www.amazon.com/Domostroi-Rules-Russian-Households-Terrible/dp/0801496896

Alexandr

Yes, I can too. But didn't this "indelible mark" just get a lot of these priests in a whole boatload of trouble for practices "associated" with this "indelible mark"?

Alexandr

<div style="display:none">
</div>

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds that highly offensive.

It's also ridiculous and the phrase glass houses comes to mind. I recall certain monasteries in Massachusetts and Texas with certain connections to Jordanville in which certain monks with long hair and beards indulged in certain practices with legal consequences. It doesn't mean that I attribute that to their sartorial choices.

I apologize if I have offended you. Your use of quotes around "indelible mark" led me to believe that we were speaking of the same "indiscretion". And you are correct about Boston and Texas. But both of those groups rapidly found themselves outside the Church. Has Rome dealt with the issue as thoroughly?

But we are straying from the heart of the subject. Different cultures and prevailing local practices color how we look at things. Australia has many nude beaches, does it not? That would be very offensive to most American sensibilities. In rural Pennsylvania, "pretty" men are frowned upon. And priests look like priests.

Alright, you are perfectly right to pull my leg! Fashion trends in the time of Ivan the Terrible, indeed. I don't think I'm up to nude beaches, but this totally covered up look doesn't quite describe me either!

LOL!! I was wondering when you were going to catch on!

Seriously, a Matushka should dress modestly in Church and cover her head, whether with a scarf or hat or whatever , it makes no difference, only that it is covered. It is possible to dress modestly without looking frumpy. Her role is to be a role model for the other women in Church. And from what I've seen over the years, most Matushki do a wonderful job of it.

But... what's to discuss?

And now may I politely suggest that you all get on back to your serious discussion of what I should tell my husband about shaving (or not) and dress codes for priests?

If your husband is an Orthodox priest, he should look and dress like this.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sas/image/100426/42679.p.jpg?0.13374127902817373

Unless he is an older man, in which case, this is appropriate.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v355/237/29/577747586/n577747586_1376170_7374.jpg

Slavipodvishnik, you have me in tears of laughter! My dear husband is an Orthodox priest but somehow he missed this message when he was ordained!

In this country, it all depends on which jurisdiction he was ordained in. Some jurisdictions take the traditions of the Church more seriously than some of the others.

I will, almost always, vote for Tradition over convention.

Now let's see, if we were in 18th century Colonial America some people might have wanted Orthodox priests to wear makeup, powdered wigs and lace! You know, to "fit in" and be respectable. It was, after all, the typical dress of male members of the establishment at the time. Think about that one for a minute.

Only needed a few seconds. Typical? "Those who could afford wigs represented 5 percent of the total population of Virginia." (link)

Wigs were going out of fashion by the middle of the 18th century. They had only become popular in the reign of Louis XIV, who thinning pate was covered by elaborate perukes. Powdering the wigs was a necessity to keep down the vermin that infested them. But by the reign of Louis XVI in France and George III in England, a new simplicity began to dominate fashion. Benjamin Franklin more or less killed of the wig for men when he decided that the proper persona to project in the French court was that of simple, homespun Bonhomme Richard (Poor Richard, of Almanac fame). Franklin (who had worn wigs when representing the colonies at the Court of St. James) was a huge hit, and the French, ever slaves to the latest fad, tossed their wigs into the trash. The English soon followed suit, except for ceremonial positions, thereby allowing them to have the best of both worlds.

I'm with you Pani! I've got to say once again that clothes don't make the man - or the woman.

Rasputin looked like the pictures - that didn't make him a Saintly man. Likewise, the same may be said for any number of clean shaven clerics.

My lifelong problem with the certain members of the more 'traditionalist' faction of Orthodoxy has been their never-ending insistence that the internalization of faith can only best be expressed through the most rigorous of outward, external expressions - from clothes, to liturgics, to iconography and so on. (Particularly when practiced in what appears to be a romanticized Western recreation of mid-19th century Russian rural lifestyles.)

I respect those like Slavipodvishnik who are sincere in their beliefs and who truly practice the virtues of our shared faith, but I have known far too many clean shaven men of faith who honestly ministered to their flocks for decades as kind, hard-working and humble Orthodox priests to take him too seriously on this subject.

He wasn't talking about Russian hermits, but in one lecture I heard him criticize those who went overboard in clerical garb and fashion as decking themselves in "Byzantine drag".

Also note a Metropolitan of one Old Calendar jurisdiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilarion_Alfeyev

Father Vasily Vasilievich casts a long shadow. Is outrage!

If being faithful to "that which has been handed down to us", earns me the title of a foaming at the mouth, reactionary traditionalist, well, I will wear that badge with honor. Now I am speaking only of the Church here in America, but if people think that what goes on in this country is the norm for Orthodoxy, they are sadly mistaken. But don't take my word for it. Look at the local Orthodox Churches in your town. Check out their schedule of services. If a Church routinely has a full vigil service Saturdays and the eve of Feast days, Divine Liturgy of at least 90 minutes on Sundays and Feast days, routinely has Akafist and Paraklesis services, encourages fasting, has adult education courses during the week, supports and visits their local monastery, (If they belong to a jurisdiction that even HAS monasteries!), supports mission parishes, arranges for visiting miraculous icons and visiting hierarchs to speak at heir churches, well, it has been my experience, and I have visited hundreds of Orthodox Churches in the US and Canada, that the priest at these Churches will look and dress like a priest. If the Church in question only has Liturgy for 45 minutes on Sunday morning, and the only activity at the Church other than Sunday Liturgy is bingo, well, take a guess at what the priest will usually look like. Now I am speaking of cradle Orthodox here. Within the recent past, i.e., less than 100 years, there have been groups that came into Orthodoxy from Protestant or other backgrounds that have not yet fully been acclimatized into Orthopraxy, and we must be patient with them, allowing them the time and teaching them to shed their westernizations.

By the same token, as DMD cautioned, I am leery of those that take it too far. Just because a priest has long hair and a beard, does not excuse him from washing and combing it. One can be hirsute without looking like a hippie or a Rastafarian. For a priest to wear a riassa whilst teaching or appearing in public events is proper, wearing it to Kennywood is not. And as our beloved Administrator John once so succinctly put it, "I'd prefer to see Eastern clergy dress as Eastern clergy. But, to be blunt, if it is the middle of August with temps pushing 100 and I drive past the priest's house and see him cutting his grass in a cassock rather than in a t-shirt and shorts I'm going to wonder about him."

Alexandr

To continue my line of thought. This just came to my attention, and it illustrates how some Orthodox in this country are woefully ignorant of their own faith.

http://gotruthreform.org/gay-parishioner-denied-communion/

What can be said of a person's understanding of Orthodoxy if denying a practicing homosexual of communion is now a form of "extreme fundamentalism"? Since when is communion a right that priests must give us regardless of what sins we commit? Since when is receiving communion considered a "good thing" regardless of the state of our souls and our way of life?
It is not "extreme Orthodox fundamentalism" but rather it is the Orthodox tradition, the Scriptures, and basic morality that is being challenged by some who have supposedly been raised in the Orthodox Church.

Gospodi Pomilui!

Alexandr

I am not sure how we got from long hair and beards to homosexuality but I want to comment on something specific that Slavipodvizhik mentioned in the prior post. He made a comment about forty-five minute liturgies and bingo while at the same time mentioning his frustrations at how others might perceive him through stereotypes based upon his choice of appearance.

First, I do not regard him as a 'foaming at the mouth, reactionary traditionalist' and if I came across as expressing a stereotype-based opinion, I apologize as that was never my intent.

Stereotypes are to some extent based upon subjective observations made by groups of people over time. They exist to allow us to fit our prejudices neatly into a box so that when someone or something in a stereotyped group surprises our preconceptions, it gives us an excuse to not to think about our own preconceived notions on life we can retreat into a 'group-think' approach and not confront the challenge to our world-view such behavior can cause.

Now, back in the 1940's and 1950's it is true that in many parishes of ACROD and even the Metropolia many 'time honored' Latinizations in the Rubrics were continued and a 45 minute Liturgy might have been a basis for making an assumption or two. Likewise Bingo or other forms of fund raising not really common to Orthodoxy were used to keep parishes going or pay the mortgage. Many in the more 'traditionalist' mind set of Orthodoxy simply discounted 'those' folks as not being "Orthodox enough" for them.

Today few of our Orthodox parishes rely on bingo and none still utilize the heavily Latinized rubrics which were prevalent in the Uniate times. For goodness sake, my Eastern Catholic brothers have set most of those innovations aside as well, seeking a more traditional Eastern praxis.

If you go to my parish on a typical Sunday for Liturgy, you will be there for about an hour and forty-five minutes or more, depending on the Sunday, the Sermon and the attendance. The same holds true at our two OCA parishes and the other ACROD parish in town. (Likewise at the BCC parish down the street.)

The UGCC priest has longer hair, a beard and wears his cassock even when being interviewed on the TV morning show about his annual picnic.

Enough said in my opinion as we all, myself included, venture into dangerous territory by judging the quality of a man or woman based on how they look.

As a foaming at the mouth, reactionary traditionalist myself (albeit of a different tradition) I took my Russian friend to be using that phrase in a most complimentary way.

I have a beard and I don't sing bass. I'm more of a cross between a baritone and a tenor.

(One week, I was too lazy to shave and the Missus remarked "Are you growing a beard?" in a very happy tone. I thought to myself "Apparently I am." That was almost 3 years ago. It's definitely less maintenance than shaving every day.)