Oh, then it doesn't apply, since there is no admonition to the church today against using instruments during worship.:tonofbricks:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reverence in God's house
- Thread starter abcgrad94
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Even if it were true then there is an obligation put on the church:I don't believe for one minute that you are aware of churches that require those who cannot afford means of warmth to have such to attend church. I believe you are overstating the problem in order to support your view.
James 2:15-16 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Here's a novel but old fashioned thought:
How about each of us asking the Lord how we should dress in our particular local church to reach our particular field of harvest without compromising standards He would set for us?
And do it.
And let others follow their own convictions without judging them.
As a teen, that worked even to eliminate immodest clothing. Each was concerned to protect their witness, and found amazing freedom within modesty.
How about each of us asking the Lord how we should dress in our particular local church to reach our particular field of harvest without compromising standards He would set for us?
And do it.
And let others follow their own convictions without judging them.
As a teen, that worked even to eliminate immodest clothing. Each was concerned to protect their witness, and found amazing freedom within modesty.
and you are misstating what I actually said, get it right and we'll discuss it, but as long as your calling me a liar, without proof.I don't believe for one minute that you are aware of churches that require those who cannot afford means of warmth to have such to attend church. I believe you are overstating the problem in order to support your view.
which reminds me, prove I'm a liar, prove no one here lives like this. otherwise I'm not the one lying here.
Sister Donna, I think you're taking things way too personally here and assigning intent where there is none. Just my take.
Brother Aaron, exploiting the poor? Hardly. I was simply showing (with thankfulness) that God is not bound to our four walls, and, hallelujah, will meet with us, even in the dung hill.
As for the thread:
I have personal preferrences on what I wear---inside the church building and outside. I have preferrences on how I dress my children. How I raise my children. Etc. I do think that people should act respectful in the church house. But I don't think we should act better on Sundays than we do the rest of the week.
But none of that makes me holy (or holier than others who don't share my preferrences). If that were the case and my best was what was accepted, Cain's sacrifice would have been just fine. Unfortunately, we've gone the way of Cain if we think our best will grant us favor. Our righteousness stinks in God's nostrils.
That's why there is grace. Jesus paid the price and gave us His grace because we could Never, Ever do anything to merit the favor of Almighty God. Thank God for Jesus!!!
Brother Aaron, exploiting the poor? Hardly. I was simply showing (with thankfulness) that God is not bound to our four walls, and, hallelujah, will meet with us, even in the dung hill.
As for the thread:
I have personal preferrences on what I wear---inside the church building and outside. I have preferrences on how I dress my children. How I raise my children. Etc. I do think that people should act respectful in the church house. But I don't think we should act better on Sundays than we do the rest of the week.
But none of that makes me holy (or holier than others who don't share my preferrences). If that were the case and my best was what was accepted, Cain's sacrifice would have been just fine. Unfortunately, we've gone the way of Cain if we think our best will grant us favor. Our righteousness stinks in God's nostrils.
That's why there is grace. Jesus paid the price and gave us His grace because we could Never, Ever do anything to merit the favor of Almighty God. Thank God for Jesus!!!
paul wassona
New Member
Wow, Spinach, didn't know ya had it in ya! Just kidding, GREAT post!
Donna, I would just take his unbelief as denial.
Donna, I would just take his unbelief as denial.
Hi Tom;Where is it said that if you don't dress up, you are dressing immodestly? All of us would condemn immodesty in church and everywhere else.
I would say that common sense wins here. I'm not talking about dressing up to show off your wealth, or make others uncomfortable. Dressing modestly to me is wearing what best represents our witness. It isn't necessarily an $1500. suit. I believe we should always put our best foot forward for the Lord. If all you have is rags to wear the by all means wear the best rags you have. I've seen women in shorts in the summer and men in sleaveless T- shirts, which is not appropreate.
You would wear your best for a job interview or to appear in court what makes them any better than being in the presence of the Lord. How we present ourselves says a lot about us. If you look like a slob you most likely are. Do slob's make good witnesses?
MB
The "job interview" analogy is often cited, but not necessary the analogy that support dressing up. I wore a suit when I interviewed for my current job. But my daily business attire is the more casual dockers and a polo shirt. Both are modest, but one is appropriate for regular business attire, while the other is not. If the analogy applies to weekly worship, it shows that casual attire can be modest and respectful to the environment, just as my dockers and polo shirt are respectful to my business environment.
Hi Tom;
I would say that common sense wins here. I'm not talking about dressing up to show off your wealth, or make others uncomfortable. Dressing modestly to me is wearing what best represents our witness. It isn't necessarily an $1500. suit. I believe we should always put our best foot forward for the Lord. If all you have is rags to wear the by all means wear the best rags you have. I've seen women in shorts in the summer and men in sleaveless T- shirts, which is not appropreate.
You would wear your best for a job interview or to appear in court what makes them any better than being in the presence of the Lord. How we present ourselves says a lot about us. If you look like a slob you most likely are. Do slob's make good witnesses?
MB
Please provide your definition of 'slob' as determined by one's dress- dress jeans, Dockers, dress shirt, etc.
Hi Tom;
I would say that common sense wins here. I'm not talking about dressing up to show off your wealth, or make others uncomfortable. Dressing modestly to me is wearing what best represents our witness. It isn't necessarily an $1500. suit. I believe we should always put our best foot forward for the Lord. If all you have is rags to wear the by all means wear the best rags you have. I've seen women in shorts in the summer and men in sleaveless T- shirts, which is not appropreate.
You would wear your best for a job interview or to appear in court what makes them any better than being in the presence of the Lord. How we present ourselves says a lot about us. If you look like a slob you most likely are. Do slob's make good witnesses?
MB
We are ALWAYS in the presence of the Lord. Why do you say sleeveless T-shirts and shorts are not appropriate? According to whom? If it's not in the Bible, it's only your opinion.
It's fine to have a preference. We all do. But it's not our job to tell others their attire is not "appropriate" based on our PREFERENCE and not SCRIPTURE.
I also do not think we should say "common sense" dictates we wear (fill in the blank) because it implies that others who do not share your opinion do not have common sense. Culture, tradition, or personal preference is what dictates it, usually, not "common sense."
paul wassona
New Member
So you're sayingthat when going to church you have a higher standard for "regular business attire" than for it?The "job interview" analogy is often cited, but not necessary the analogy that support dressing up. I wore a suit when I interviewed for my current job. But my daily business attire is the more casual dockers and a polo shirt. Both are modest, but one is appropriate for regular business attire, while the other is not. If the analogy applies to weekly worship, it shows that casual attire can be modest and respectful to the environment, just as my dockers and polo shirt are respectful to my business environment.
I asked earlier andit was so conveniently ignored, "Didn't Jesus mean 1st the inside should be made clean and then the outside is next? Isn't the connection made that we are the temple which is to be adorned better on the outside than the tabernacle was covered with badger's skins?
I would have to say that kahki's resemble badger's skins more closely than "reg. bus. attire" "Dockers" ARE CONSIDERD KAHKI'S AND ALSO ARE CASUAL.
paul wassona
New Member
Caution MB, my experiences with mexdeaf is all he wants to do is pick a fight.Please provide your definition of 'slob' as determined by one's dress- dress jeans, Dockers, dress shirt, etc.
Your own counterpart defined this for you already mexdeaf, do you also think God deserves less than regular business attire but the world deserves bette?
Last edited by a moderator:
paul wassona
New Member
I have read where the bearing of the thigh is always considered nakedness. I also know that when the upper portion of the arm is exposed it draws attention and when it is covered it draws less attention.We are ALWAYS in the presence of the Lord. Why do you say sleeveless T-shirts and shorts are not appropriate? According to whom? If it's not in the Bible, it's only your opinion.
It's fine to have a preference. We all do. But it's not our job to tell others their attire is not "appropriate" based on our PREFERENCE and not SCRIPTURE.
I also do not think we should say "common sense" dictates we wear (fill in the blank) because it implies that others who do not share your opinion do not have common sense. Culture, tradition, or personal preference is what dictates it, usually, not "common sense."
Don't blame me for the truth, blame the depravity of mankind.
No, saying that, if you're using the analogy of wearing a suit for an interview, one must accept the fact that appropriate business attire on daily basis is informal, and still appropriate.So you're sayingthat when going to church you have a higher standard for "regular business attire" than for it?
You're assuming incorrectly that informal attire is akin to "badger skins". That assumption is not scripturally consistent.I asked earlier andit was so conveniently ignored, "Didn't Jesus mean 1st the inside should be made clean and then the outside is next? Isn't the connection made that we are the temple which is to be adorned better on the outside than the tabernacle was covered with badger's skins?
You can say that. Scripture doesn't.I would have to say that kahki's resemble badger's skins more closely than "reg. bus. attire" "Dockers" ARE CONSIDERD KAHKI'S AND ALSO ARE CASUAL.
I have read where the bearing of the thigh is always considered nakedness. I also know that when the upper portion of the arm is exposed it draws attention and when it is covered it draws less attention.
Don't blame me for the truth, blame the depravity of mankind.
You have read it where? Taliban Quarterly? :tongue3:
Scripture please.
At one time, showing ankles was considered nakedness... In our church records, a pastor was asked to leave because his wife wore a dress that showed the calf of her leg... this was early 1900's.
Your own counterpart defined this for you already mexdeaf, do you also think God deserves less than regular business attire but the world deserves bette?
I think God deserves what he wants- that is that I should love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, strength; and love my neighbor as myself. His attention is upon the heart. I believe there is a Scripture which says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart."
Perhaps we could find some grace on this issue if our hearts were tuned to Him and not to the appearance of others around us.
I have read where the bearing of the thigh is always considered nakedness. I also know that when the upper portion of the arm is exposed it draws attention and when it is covered it draws less attention.
Don't blame me for the truth, blame the depravity of mankind.
The depravity comes not from a lack of dress, but from a lack of self-control on the part of the beholder.
paul wassona
New Member
You know your Bible so well, find it yourself, it's there but maybe you intentionally overlooked it.You have read it where? Taliban Quarterly? :tongue3:
Scripture please.
At one time, showing ankles was considered nakedness... In our church records, a pastor was asked to leave because his wife wore a dress that showed the calf of her leg... this was early 1900's.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.