The Canon Challenge Of Bible Non-Absolutes


It is crystal clear that there are certain aspects of the Christian’s expression that are gray; as Christian denominations do not seem to arrive at a consensus on them.
These gray areas which indubitably trigger discordant tones, even in sermon-delivery are based more on appearance and attachments most common with Christian women. These include but not limited to, the wearing of trousers by Christian women, fixing of hair with artificials, nail-fixing, painting (face, lips and eye painting referred to as make-up) and uncovering of hair in church service.
A school of thought believes such acts which were only designed to enhance a Christian’s beauty is no sin, after-all since aesthetic is an attribute and in controvertible evidence of the existence of God.
For protagonists of such thought, a Christian who indulges in them can not go to hell since such acts do not translate to sin. They believe that certain practices which are relative do not undermine the Sola Scripture (Supremacy) of the Bible. And such practices which are Bible non-absolutes or non-essential don’t really determine the eternal destination of those who indulge in them, because Christianity is more of the heart than of appearance. Does not the word of God say that salvation is a function of grace, through faith in the atoning work of Christ? (See Eph. 2:8)? But is there a relationship between salvation and good works? (Eph. 2:9-10).
But does not Jesus teach that the proof of a Christian is his fruit –his outward manifestations or life expressions?
However, the second school of thought believes such practices negate the word of God and do not advance the course of the Kingdom of Christ. They advanced a lot of propositions as to the undesirability of the use of make-ups, opening of hair, wearing of trousers, some of which bother on cultural values, passion for souls.
Both schools seem to have their points and credibility rooted in the Book of life – the Holy Bible; as they bandy argument on these controversial practices.
But let us dispassionately look at these issues in contention: if a Christian woman fixes her nails, hair with artificials, make up her facial beauty with paints,” and wears trousers, is it really worldliness? Will she not be raptured in life or at death because of her appearance?
It is pertinent to state that more often than not, God looks at the motive even as he looks at the action. Therefore, does the desire to wear trousers and makeup informed by a godly motive-is it informed by a commitment to honour God and advance the course of the gospel of Jesus Christ in a culture that is averse to women wearing trousers and indulging in make-ups.
Can a Christian woman, without an iota of guilt on his part or disgust in her unbelieving target, put on the boldness to preach salvation to her target in the context of the African culture which has its value-system, some of which are in tandem with the word of God?
Of course, several cases abound where some men have refused to accept handbills and invitation from women in trousers even when such women are in the “Lord’s Service”. In fact, an embarrassed Christian woman in a conscious effort to save her face, rhetorically asks a young man who rejected her handbill: Are you rejecting the word because of my appearance?
It is necessary to state that a person’s attitude can cause rejection of what is good-even the word of God. Did not God reject Esau’s gift because of his ungodliness? These are some of the salient issues that should be looked into before concluding if a Christian’s appearance matters or not.
Every Christian is supposedly a disciple of Jesus Christ, called to disciple and be a model to others. In view of the increasing discussion on the matter, it is logical to state that a Christian woman in trousers and make-up face may not effectively communicate the gospel to unbeliever, some of whom do not lend support to such acts.