Is Legalism a "Higher" Standard?

Bapmom,

If you "maintain a higher standard" (avoid pants, jewelry etc) becuase you feel it's the right thing for you to do then good for you. No one can speak ill of you for this.

But I will agree with many of the others on a purely observational level (what I've experienced personally) many "higher standard" churches ARE in fact legalistic. Now that may not apply at all to you or your church.

I personally have a big problem with churches and Christians who look down on someone with facial hair or without a tie or on a woman in pants.

 

I would too, Charles.

But I also turn that around and say I have a big problem with people and churches who say they are better than us because the women wear pants, or whatever. They are priding themselves on their standards just as much as the ones you mentioned, Charles.

 

I'm sure they would have a time with me and my little band. Almost every male member wears a beard at least part of the year. Last Saturday night's meeting, everyone of us was sporting some facial hair, all but one a full beard. It must be the primitive thing.

 

I don't even know anyone anymore who has a problem with facial hair. It used to be connected in some people's minds with the "hippy" movement, wasnt it? I think that whole scare has gone past us, and Ive never heard of anyone having any problem with it in over 25 years. I even remember one church I was in joking about it because a man in their church grew a beard for some parade or beard contest each year.

 

I grew up (well...sort of grew up) in a church that was fairly legalistic and it has since come to realize that non-Biblical standards are not improvements. Higher or lower are accurate words which sometimes mean "better" and sometimes mean "even more so". It always was an attempt to be God honoring, to be better Christians, to be good people. The problem was that people tend to begin thinking that this is proof of fruit rather than just fruit. My own personal realization came when it occurred to me that the standard I was shooting for wasn't in a line of left and right or up and down but a bullseye with God and His Word in the center. If I miss that target by having "higher" or "lower" or left (liberal) or right (wing) it makes no difference for I have missed the target which is God. I do not mean that the centrist view in these spectrums is therefore the right one. I merely mean that it is Biblical standards which we should strive for and not being more or less than someone else.

 

High vs. Low??

If someone has a standard that they will not watch any movies with nudity in them, and someone else has a standard that they will watch movies with nudity, would you really have us believe that one is not "higher" and one "lower"?

Of coures there are higher and lower standards. Some have taken a higher standard for biblical reasons, such as not watching movies with nudity in them. Others have taken a higher standard for personal reasons, such as not watching movies at all.

They are higher standards, and they not necessarily legalistic. I think you guys (and gals) are way overreacting here.

Not when your playing golf, or going into debt.

 

Yes, but, we are not talking about nudity in movies. We were discussing women wearing pants and women who only wear dresses/skirts. I still contend that one is not higher than the other. They are just different standards, and to each his/her own. Dr. Bob aptly pointed out, in our culture "higher" usually means "better". A woman, who wears pants, is no less spiritual than a woman who only wears dresses or skirts. In fact, spirituality is not even determined by what you wear, but what is in your heart. A woman, who wears pants, very well could be more spiritual. To qualify spirituality by the style of clothing someone wears is ridiculous. God does not care what you wear, it is all about what is in your heart.

Bapmom,

Just to clarify...When I said modesty is modesty I was only referring to "Christian" modesty, if there even is such a thing. Secondly, I do not believe that a woman is "more" modest because she has all of her body covered, such as the Muslim women you referred to. It is a different kind of modesty. If we were to use that logic, a woman wearing culottes would be practically naked.

Also, I do not necessarily think you are legalistic. It is right that you stick to your convictions, but as long as you use terms to qualify your convictions, such as "higher" and "stricter", which imply better, you are asking for criticism. A word, such as "different", does not imply better or worse. This is just an honest observation, and by no means am I trying to force you to change.

 

We were talking about standards, per the OP. The claim was made by several that there are no higher or lower standards. I simply pointed out that there are. Whether or not dress is one of them ... well that is a different issue.

What is in your heart is shown by what happens on the outside.

1 Tim 2 indicates that God does care. He commands women to dress modestly.

I am not a "no pants" kind of person. My wife wears pants, even to church on occasion.

But lets consider the issue a little more deeply. "Pants vs no pants" is a no brainer for most. If some women never wear pants, that is certainly their prerogative.

But let's compare: Take a standard that allows a pair of skin tight low rider jeans with underwear hanging out, with a crop top T shirt that is very tight to see the underwear through it.

Now take a standard that allows only skirts and loose fitting tops.

Which one is higher? The second is obvious higher. That doesn't mean it is the "only high" standard that is acceptable. There is certainly room between example 1 and example 2. But to say that one is not higher is ludicrous. Surely we could all agree on that.

 

What is considered modest today was not considered modest 25 years ago.

I do believe in standards and I believe there can be higher and lower standards.

Modesty can be very subjective.

 

Is that because modesty has changed? Because we have become insensitive to it?

 

Once again the primary point is being overlooked. The issue is not whether we label something higher or lower. This issue is what lies behind the label ... a spoken or unspoken attitude of spiritual superiority.

I will even bite on Larry's hypothetical ... it could be said a person who refuses to watch particular movies for certain reasons may have a "higher" personal standard. Not the problem. The problem comes when I consider my position more "spiritual" or "right" than yours.

The movies is actually a great illustration based on experience. The churches in which I was raised forbid people from attending movies. After all, someone may not know if you are watching Bambi the fawn or Bambi the poll dancer. And who knows what type of previews they might show in a rated-G movie. The result of this type of teaching??? Most people I knew thought those who attended movies were compromising and therefore could not be right with God. The same could be said of music, dress, associations, public school ballgames, etc.

Call it a higher standard if you prefer. That is not the issue. The attitude that resulted from the preference is the issue ... wow that sounds a lot like what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for - creating man-made standards that nullified the true intent of the Word.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Is that because modesty has changed? Because we have become insensitive to it?

Possibly.

I have not seen mini skirts on women and holes in the pants of boys in awhile.

I have not seen a woman at a lake or beach with pasties on in a long time.

Possibly some new things that are no good have come about and others which were poor are gone.

Yesterday I was looking at some pictures of the past in the early 1900's of the university. The women at the formal dance then looked exactly like what you see today at a formal dance. The only difference is the hair style.

We tend to remember what we want to remember.

 

I'm jumping in late on this thread, but I would agree with Grace. As a prodigal daughter that returned to the Father several years ago, I saw that attitude displayed often, over matters that should be nothing more than personal preference, and not just over things like standards of clothing, either.

That attitude of MY-preference-is-the-ONLY-right-way can be quite harmful to a person that is seeking to learn to live by Biblical standards again after years of living by the world's standards. That attitude that was so lacking in grace and understanding was very conflicting for me until I learned to listen to God only, and ignore those who wanted me to join them with their own preferences.

My own church has many members from all over the world, so it isn't unusual to see dress styles from different cultures. Or men in suits sitting next to men in jeans and a T-shirt, teenagers wearing the latest style (toned down for modesty's sake) sitting next to very conservatively dressed women.

Or, sadly, men that were once homeless and drug-addicted, and women that were once in jail, sitting apart from those who are afraid that they might be soiled somehow by association.

Isn't how one chooses to dress more about matters of the heart as opposed to the outward appearance? I think that whatever we do should be for the glory of God, not to promote our own standing among others, as long as it agrees with what God tells us in His Word.

 

So is it more spiritual to have a higher about movies with nudity? Absolutely ...

Higher standards are sometimes the result of a greater spiritual sensitivity.

 

OTOH, "Schindler's List" had a fair amount of nudity. I'd hardly consider watching it as a lowering of moral standards.

Sometimes I fail to see why we permit violence in abundance, but get a glimpse at one breast, and all hades breaks loose.

 

A few observations:

1. Nudity crosses the line of modesty so it is not the same issue. You know that. I am surprised you try and employ this tactic. It is quite common for fundies to speak in extreme terms but you do not often take that approach.

2. The "more spiritual" decision is to abstain from lust often caused by nudity. The decision to not watch a R-rated movie is a preference to guard that principle. That does not make the decision more "spiritual" in and of itself. Another person may decide to never watch a R-rated movie without their spouse present to tell them "when to look or not to look". Neither decision is "more spiritual" than the other. It is simply a matter of preference to guard against violating the biblical principle.

3. The logic you try and use here is the same logic that taken to its natural end results in such standards as "never go to the movies" which often results in the underlying spirit discussed earlier, viz., I am more spiritual than the person who does attend movies.

 

Who's "we"??? Certainly not me. However, I do think there is a difference between violence and nudity. Violence does not cause sexual lust, and sexual lust is one of hte greatest problems that men face. Seeing "a glimpse of one breast" can trigger that in most men. But I would not endorse or recommend movies with "violence in abundance."

 

I am not speaking in extremes. I am way past the pants issue. I am speaking of standards. The claim was made that "higher vs. lower" standards was a false dichotomy. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of that statement.

I don't think there is much of a difference here between what I am saying. The point is that it is always spiritual to avoid looking at sexual nudity outside of marriage.

First, the fact that a standard may lead "logically" to an "underlying spirit discussed earlier" is no reason not to have the standard. Secondly, you would have to demonstrate that the "logical conclusion" of the idea that I stated is what you claim. I don't think it is at all. I think it goes past the logical conclusion to an unwarranted one.

But that is for another discussion. This discussion is about the existence of higher vs. lower standards. I can't see any legitimate way to deny that higher and lower standards exist, and that spirituality is involved in it.

You want to focus on the "bad end," that some use their standards as measures of spirituality. You will have to have that discussion with someone else. I have no intention of getting involved in that.