The first charge that critics of this treatise will articulate is the “majoring on the minors” premise that is also cast alongside the missional urgency of the Church to reach and reconcile the lost to Jesus Christ. In response, I merely point toward the writings of the Apostle Paul who–dare I say–none in the Church could lay claim to a more fervent desire to see the lost saved than he. Yet, despite his overwhelming burden to see the whole house of Israel saved and the world around him evangelized, Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, found it necessary to major on what many now lay claim as “minors.”

In writing to Timothy, Paul would address the subject of adornment, going as far as to admonish the women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…” (I Tim. 2:9). Should we take the accusations of those indignant toward conversations such as these, Paul would then also be charged with “majoring on the minors.”

“Come on Paul, with everything going on and all the lost souls that need to hear the Gospel, stop being so legalistic!”

This tactic of using the unsaved as a fulcrum of influence to silence principles that are culturally unsavory is damnable! Honestly, it is a form of manipulation that has been used to undermine any conversations that attempt to address issues such as this. Even now, educated, erudite thinkers (at least in their own minds) will emphasize examples of those who take extreme positions on various subjects and, by pointing to the extreme, silence those who call for the realization of divine ideals that resist the moth-eaten decay of things corruptible in an effort to please God.

I do not write to be contentious but I acknowledge that such a treatise will draw contentious readers. That is to be expected and, with all ideas—including core doctrines of salvific theology—those would speak a little louder on subjects like this will always find themselves the target of someone’s disagreeable tomato. Indeed, my face and this treatise will be a most tempting target for such opponents, but I merely need soap and water to wash away the remnants of their volley. So, let us begin.

Nothing New: A Brief History of Cosmetics

It is nothing new and the Church community has not suddenly come upon an era in which cosmetics have slipped in as a controversial subject to rock our boat in gentle waters. No, every decade can lay claim to the practice of cosmetic use amidst the diverse body of believers of what we identify as the Church. To put it plainly, cosmetics is neither something culturally innovate nor new since, as far back as we can discover, civilized and uncivilized cultures have long-engaged in the tedious practice of cosmetic decoration.

Fenja Gunn, in The Artificial Face: A History of Cosmetics, writes:

Women and even men, it seems, have always had a fascination for changing their appearance with the aid of paints, powders, dyes, depilatory devices and other artificial method….” (p. 19).

As Gunn brings out in the subsequent history of cosmetics, the use of cosmetics was not always utilized as the “means of enhancing or creating beauty,” (pg. 19) but was deeply involved in ancient civilizations as a means of camouflaging, invoking fear in aggressive situations, or having social and/or spiritual reasons. As time progressed, primitive practices steeped in superstition and ritual would soon morph into a “language of ‘cosmetic’ art with which to express their feelings” (pg. 22). The painting of designs, tattoos, oils and fragrances, along with diverse hairstyles would come to be used to “enhance a mood, convey a meaning, or define a social or sexual condition” (pg. 22).

One of the terms that stood out to me the most from Gunn’s book was “cosmetic mutilation” when the author described the historical means by which people “suffered to be beautiful” (pg. 23). Filing teeth, tattooing, piercing, cutting, and deforming physical features are all facets of the historical cosmetic journey and facets of modern beautification and alteration that we can easily identify with. Despite the primitive backdrop of many of the cosmetic practices, “undoubtedly personal vanity and a desire to appear attractive to the opposite sex are important reasons for cosmetic decoration” (pg. 23).

By the time one enters Ancient Egypt, cosmetic beautification is already something that most today associate with the powerful nation. Eye-paint, rouged cheeks and lips, and elaborate wigs were all common in Egyptian society. Among the ruling class, false beards and wigs plaited and embellished with jewelry are common images many of us remember from our surface-level history classes that touched on the great Pharaohs and their families.

Advancing through history, from Greece and Rome to the Middle Ages and beyond, cosmetic beautification and embellishment continued to weave its way through advancing civilizations. In the 17th-century, “excessive cosmetic artificiality and an exaggerated attention to personal vanity…. became historically synonymous with the dashing cavalier and his lady” (Gunn, pg. 92). By the 18th-century, men and women alike took part in the elaborate show of cosmetic artificiality with powdered wigs, face powder, and artificial brows. We still chuckle when we see the torturous results this century achieved in their attempts to be beautiful, dashing, and relevant.

The 19th-century is an interesting period of time in the history of cosmetics in that it is known for less of the cosmetic extravagance seen in prior centuries. Then, like a rocket shot into space, we embarked on the 20th-century and the industry of artificial beauty was catapulted into the center of American society.

Greatly influenced by the theatre and the burgeoning popularity of on-screen stars, the sensationalism of sensuality and artificiality took American women by storm. Nail varnish, eyebrow pencils, lipsticks, mascaras, powders and foundations, complexion creams, rouges, eyeshadows—just to name a few—soon came to dominate Western culture and, with the U.S. being the largest beauty industry in the world, the world. It is staggering to consider, but according to a Forbes 2019 article, the cosmetic industry is projected to be an 800-billion-dollar industry by 2025! Not only has the artificial face overtaken America, we are seeing a progressive rise of its influence in the church community.

The Painted Saint

In the next articles (part 2 or 3), we will examine the biblical perspectives regarding the use of cosmetics. However, in light of this present segment my question is: what should the 21st-century church’s stand be regarding cosmetics? I ask this due to the prevailing evidence of the use of cosmetics among women in the church. The evidence for this is neither anecdotal nor hearsay since the implementation of live-streaming and social media has thrust faith communities into the spotlight, allowing a window into the practices and cultures of various church women. I see it—not because I am looking for it, but because of the live streams that announce themselves on Facebook feeds or the highlights and/or video reels showcased on Instagram.

Influential women and platform personalities wearing heavy layers of foundation, blush, or some other ingredients utilized to achieve the artificial face is becoming an alarmingly common trend. One of the most troubling aspects of this is that often—at front and center of those using these cosmetics—are women who are the most vocal about the empowerment of women, whose ministries often seek to example what I call the Ecclesiastical-Feminist–the empowered, strong, and independent-spirited woman that leads, innovates, and collaborates. I am 100% behind the foundational ideas of equality, strength, and innovation of the biblical woman of God! I am married to a strong, innovate, and smart women who could easily outpace myself in many facets of life! However, nothing is more counter to the empowerment of women than the use of cosmetics.

Nothing screams more of inequality than the cultural pressures that face women in America than the idea that they are not good enough without an artificial face. When is the last time a man has felt pressured to apply facial foundation, blush, or some other cosmetic to his face before going to work? That is exactly the point! The culture of the world has not only sexualized the concept of a woman but it has culturally groomed women from an early age to fall into the perpetual trap of artificiality. Simply put, secular society has convinced women that they are not visually acceptable without the use of cosmetics.

It’s the greatest cover-up in history! Teach young ladies the fine art of artificiality. Like actors on stage, apply a mask and assume the role (I will get more into this when we discuss the psychological aspects of cosmetics). Learning how to “put on your make-up” is an active coming-of-age ritual in many homes across America, and should one doubt the necessity of developing an artistic-like flair for the practice of cosmetic application, just go to YouTube and discover the countless videos dedicated to perfecting the process of applying the artificial face.

The unspoken yet prevailing belief in our society is that it is ok for young men to navigate the tumult of acne, pale skin, and blemishes au naturel but young ladies must cover up and repair the imperfections. There is an image war being waged against women in America and, in my opinion, it is nothing short of abuse when we continue to allow the perpetuation of these ideas bombard women and young girls every single day.

It is hypocritical to proclaim, “you are good enough” whilst the evidence of being uncomfortable with one’s own complexion, the shape of one’s eyes, the lines of one’s face, and the fullness of one’s cheeks—among other things carefully layered with cosmetics—screams to the observant, “I’m not good enough as I am!”

We have reached unprecedented levels of suicide among adolescent girls whose lives have been hijacked by image terrorism! They are being bombarded by a constant drip-drip of sexualization and artificiality while many female influencers in the church continue to masquerade a message of authenticity while sporting an artificial face. The constancy of this pressure screams at them from social media platforms, entertainment industries, and practically every conceivable facet of secular society.

It is tragic—and revealing—that celebrity news agencies find it weirdly titillating to capture pictures of female stars without their make-up and following up with front-page articles proclaiming “star goes natural…no make-up” on their magazines and blogs. Let’s face it, insecurity sells, and the cosmetic industry is making billions of dollars on that dirty little secret!

Go read the covers of beauty magazines and prove me wrong. Here are some blurbs from actual magazines.

• How to look younger now
• A better body in 24 hours
• Khloe on Botox and her New Body
• The Best Makeovers
• Slim and Sexy Now!
• Best & Worst Beach Bodies
• Dress for Sex
• Cosmetics for Glowing Skin
• Injectables Explained
• The latest eye rejuvenation techniques
• Quick Fix: Non-Invasive Facelifts

I find it tragic that in 2007 there were nearly “11.7 million cosmetic surgical and non-surgical procedures performed in the United States” (Beauty at Any Cost, 2008, p. 3). Statistics reveal that from 1997 until 2007, we saw a 500% increase in these procedures! According to plasticsurgery.org, there were 17.5 million surgical and minimally invasive procedures performed in 2017! Among the most popular of the surgical procedures:

• Breast Augmentation
• Liposuction
• Nose reshaping
• Eyelid surgery
• Tummy Tuck

Among the minimally invasive procedures:

• Botox
• Soft tissue fillers
• Chemical peels

This is another facet of the conversation we must have in the church community due to the alarming rise of Botox injections among young women. We cannot remain silent any longer and this rising trend of artificiality is not only harmful in its implications towards young girls, but it is contrary to the principles and precepts of the Word of God!

In our next post, we will dive into the psychology of the artificial face and the biblical attitude and ideas toward the use of cosmetics.