Modesty

[ajg1959]

This thread is craaazy!

Aint it fun tho?

AJ

 

[dan e.]

Can any of you (with Biblical scripture, King James that is) tell me why God would allow His people to dress the same way the whores do and the men dress like the women and women dress like the men?

If so, please entertain me.

Oh my heavens....this is too crazy. How come every now and then there are really hyper, young guys come out of nowhere screamin' about the KJV as if they were there when it was written?

Might I suggest a book for you?

 

[Brother Shane]

May I suggest one for you? :laugh:

<chomp!> :thumbs:

 

[dan e.]

Since no where in the new testament do we see Him changing the laws of modesty, we must conclude He still considers nakedness an abomination!

You aren't married, are you?

 

[dan e.]

May I suggest one for you? :laugh:

<chomp!> :thumbs:

Dear Lord, no.

 

[Amy.G]

Bro. Shane, I was serious when I said you should speak to your pastor about the modesty problem in your church. We have only one young woman in our church who dresses too provacatively, but she is the only person in our church who does. All the other women dress very modestly.
If you have a lot of women in your church wearing revealing clothes, it sounds like your church has a problem. Someone needs to stand up and say something to the pastor about it.

 

[Brother Shane]

Thank ya, Amy. G!

 

[Beth]

Donna!

Not as old as gramdma.

LOL! You had me laughing out loud on that one!

 

[donnA]

Ok, I think that slits that are designed to give an occasional peek of the thigh are for the sole purpose of promoting sexuality, and this I believe is against the moral fabric of the scriptures.

I am IFB, and agree with almost all of the IFB doctrines and practices except for the pants on women issue. If they are made for women and are not designed to draw attention to certain body parts then I see no biblical reason not to wear them.

However, some of the women who claim to the "no pants" doctrine will wear a long skirt,,,,,way down past their knees, but it is slit up the side almost to their rear end....I dont get it. How can the thigh flashing thing be more biblical than the modest pants suit?

Maybe this explains better where I am coming from.

AJ

Thank you for taking time to explain.
I agree a skirt with a high slit is wrong clothing, especially for christian women.
At some point a woman has to be able to judge which clothing is alright for her. But... it appears many christian women chose what the world says is alright. As for exact which type of clothing women wear there isn't a lot of scripture, and certainly not much that isn't taken out of context. What needs to be done is praying for christian women who expose themselves, they need to grow spiritually. A more spiritually mature woman will usually chose the right clothing.
Men need to be praying for women and not bashing them.
On the other hand I've seen some christian men who needed prayer too because of the way they dress.

 

[donnA]

Thank ya, Amy. G!

I agree with Amy, if theres a problem at church of christian women exposing themselves, then go to the pastor, pray first! Because he's also seen her, has to have, and yet she's still doing it.

 

[Linda64]

Ok, I think that slits that are designed to give an occasional peek of the thigh are for the sole purpose of promoting sexuality, and this I believe is against the moral fabric of the scriptures.

I am IFB, and agree with almost all of the IFB doctrines and practices except for the pants on women issue. If they are made for women and are not designed to draw attention to certain body parts then I see no biblical reason not to wear them.

However, some of the women who claim to the "no pants" doctrine will wear a long skirt,,,,,way down past their knees, but it is slit up the side almost to their rear end....I dont get it. How can the thigh flashing thing be more biblical than the modest pants suit?

Maybe this explains better where I am coming from.

AJ

My sentiments exactly! I wear modest pantsuits and long skirts and jumpers...but my long skirts and jumpers do not have slits...what's the point of wearing skirts, dresses, jumpers, etc. down to the ankles if they have those huge slits to the thighs? To me that defeats the purpose of wearing the long skirts, dresses, jumpers in the first place. Isn't the purpose to cover? :tonofbricks:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Oh my, oh my. Such temptation in this thread. :laugh:

I'll take a swipe at a couple of things.

First and most interesting: Where does the Scripture say that one must dress up for church? (I'm fine with whatever translation one wishes to use. I am an equal opportunity scripture employer)

I know that I was raised to put on my "Sunday go to meeting clothes" but, since I no longer work on the farm and my normal weekday clothes aren't dirty and ragged like the ones I wore on the farm, I see no reason to wear even fancier duds just because I'm going to the church house. So if our regular clothing is clean and neat, but are purchased from Walmart, you think that just because I can afford it I need to go to Macy's and buy me some church clothes so that I can "wear my best and finest" to meet the King? btw, I met the King for the first time in the front seat of whatever beat up car my Daddy was driving at the time in blue jeans and a shirt I can't even remember and probably with cowboy boots on my feet. I don't believe He minded how I was dressed in the least!

Nowdays, some of my best meetings with the King are done in my pajamas! I still don't believe He minds.

Today, putting on "our Sunday best" isn't the necessity it was even 50 years ago (for most folk). My granddaddy raised 14 children doing everything from sharecropping to odd jobs. Up until the day he died(at the end of 1978), he had a "good" pair of denim overalls that he wore to church, weddings and family gatherings. The rest were for working in. You are not going to convince me that his style of "best" wasn't good enough for going to worship. Maybe because, my granddaddy, who was also a Freewill preacher, has already convinced me that it is what is inside the man that God cares about and not how the outside is covered.

Second, let's just examine this piece of a quote, color coded for my conveniece:

I sit on the very first row at church, and a couple Sunday's ago was "Mother's Day." First, when the youngest mother of, I mean at the church that day (who needless-to-say didn't come back that night) got up to accept her flower, the whole congregation got to see her all of her legs and that trash bag of a dress she was wearing that hugged every corner of her. I turned my head immediately and did not clap for that woman (not a lady) while she made her way back to her seat.

Then, all the children had to come to the front (where we were sitting) of the church to pass out small flowers to the rest of the mothers standing. Within seconds, a small girl stands in front of our seat with no back to her shirt. Was that supposed to be cute? Yes, I turned my head and pitied the mother.

What does your sitting on the front pew at church have to do with this conversation? Do you sit there to get closer to the preacher? (cause it don't make no difference to God) Are you sitting there as a sign of your authority? Cause if I'm remembering right you haven't hit your 21st birthday yet. Or do you sit there so you won't be exposed to the impure masses who have yet to attain your level of spiritual maturity? See the last answer.

Now Shane, really, if you could see all of her leg, she'd have been wearing a bathing suit. And trash bag dresses describe loose, ill fitting garments, not ones that hug every curve. And even if this young lady was truly immodest, is her sin any worse than the very unloving attitude you have shown by your description of her and your rudeness in not recognizing her role as a mother. Remember, he who has not charity......

And then there is this. Just what about a bare back do you find distressing? Was this "small girl" on the verge of puberty? Did you have a clear view of the child's chest? Or was this merely a small child in a sundress that properly covered what should be covered and left uncovered that which shouldn't cause a man a problem at all. (Perverts btw, rarely care what their victims are wearing and are a threat regardless.) If you find something sexual in the bare back of a small child, you need to have some serious discussions with an adult male Christian that you respect, perferably someone who is a pastor or elder in your church.

That aside what is in italics again demonstrates your supposed authority on this issue in such a way as to reveal your lack of charity.

A mature Christian youth, you could have approached and older, mature Christian lady that you respect in your congregation and told her of your concerns in both of these cases. Pity and distain, will gain neither of these mothers anything. Then again, they probably pity you because of your arrogant attitude.

I have to say Shane, I wouldn't have thought that rudeness and arrogance were good adjectives for describing you until I read your posts in this thread.

 

[gb93433]

First and most interesting: Where does the Scripture say that one must dress up for church? (I'm fine with whatever translation one wishes to use. I am an equal opportunity scripture employer)

Well come on. Isn't that what Jesus did?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Weeelllll GB, in I Materialism chapter 5 (I think) I do seem to remember Christ telling his disciples to go start up a clothing manufacturing business.......

Oh wait, I'm confused. The scripture I meant to quote is Matthew 6:25-32. Of course then there's whole James 2:2-10 passage. It has a whole lot to say on this subject as well.

 

[Jerome]

A Narrative of the Proceedings of the General Assembly of divers Pastors, Messengers, and Ministring-Brethren of the Baptized Churches, met together in London, from Septemb. 3. to 12. 1689, from divers parts of England and Wales, Owning the Doctrine of Personal Election, and final Perseverance. Sent from, and concerned for, more than one hundred Congregations of the same Faith with themselves. London, Printed in the Year, 1689.

pp. 14-15:

"Q. Whether it be not necessary for the Elders, Ministring-Brethren, and Messengers of the Churches, to take into their serious considerations those Excesses that are found among their Members, Men and Women, with respect of their Apparel?
A. In the affirmative. That it is a shame for Men to wear long Hair, or long Perewigs, and especially Ministers, 1 Cor. 11.14, or strange Apparel, Zeph. 1. 8. That the Lord reproves the Daughters of Sion, for the Bravery, Haughtiness, and Pride of their Attire, walking with stretched-out necks, wanton Eyes, mincing as they go, Isa. 3. 16. As if they affected Tallness, as one observes upon their stretched-out Necks; tho some in these Times seem, by their high Dresses, to out-do them in that respect. The Apostle Paul exhorts, in I Tim.2.9,10. Women adorn themselves in modest Apparel, with Shamefac'dness and Sobriety : not with Broidered Hair, or Gold, or Pearls, or costly Array; but with good Works, as becomes Women professing Godliness. And I Pet. 3. 3,4,5. Whose adorning, let it not be the outward adorning, of plaiting the Hair, of wearing of Gold, or of putting on of Apparel : but the Ornament of a meek and quiet Spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this (fashion) manner, the holy Women who trusted in God adorned themselves. And therefore, we cannot but bewail it with much Sorrow and Grief of Spirit, That those Brethren and Sisters who have solemnly professed to deny themselves, Matt. 16. 24. And who are by Profession obliged in Duty not to conform to this world, Rom. 12. 2. should so much conform to the Fashions of this World; and not reform themselves in those Inclinations that their Natures addicted them to in days of gnorance, 1 Pet. 1. 14. From these Considerations we earnestly desire, That Men and Women, whose Souls are committed to our Charge, may be watched over in this matter, and that care be taken, and all just and due means used for a Reformation herein; and that such who are guilty of this crying Sin of Pride, that abounds in the Churches as well as inthe Nation, may be reproved; especially considering what Time and Treasure is foolishly wasted in adorning the Body, which would be better spent in a careful endeavour to adorn the Soul; and the charge laid out upon those Superfluities, to relieve the necessities of the poor Saints, and to promote the Interest of Jesus Christ. And though we deny not but in some cases Ornaments may be allowed, yet whatever Ornaments in Men or Women which are inconsistent with Modesty, Gravity, Sobriety, and a Scandal to Religion, opening the Mouths of the Ungodly, ought to be cast off, being truly no Ornaments to Believers, but rather a Defilement; and that those Ministers and Churches who do not endeavour after a Reformation herein, are justly to be blamed,"

 

[EdSutton]

I skipped over your queen junk because I could care less. I know what's modest and I know what's not, OK? I don't need a queen to tell me how to dress... I need that Bible. Now, go back and read my post to C4K (if you already haven't) and see why I dress different at home. You can't call me a hypocrite for dressing modestly in both places. And FYI, I don't do "modern theology". From now on, and you see to be the type I'll have to do this to, if I don't address something you said, it's because I skipped over it. That queen has nothing to do with modesty.

FTR, it appears that you perhaps could care less about what several have posted, and not just what I may have said about Queen Elizabeth I.

I did not see anyone on this thread who advocated anything less than modesty, least of all me. But I would like to know where you came up with your your Biblical definition of "modesty" and clothing somewhere. You, not I, were the one who made these statements below, that I will post in red. If I do not agree fully, or have something additional to say, I will respond in black. I will not use my normal response of placing everything in a "quote box".

"...but the God out of the King James Bible would not allow a women to be dressed in none other than a skirt and a free-flowing "modest" shirt or dress and the man in pants and a "modest" shirt."

These may be fine sentiments, I guess, as to one's personal preference for clothing (or even a Bible version), but nowhere does the KJV even suggest what you do here, as to 'style.' And the pictures I posted, of the English Queen and the link to one of Sir Walter Raleigh, for which you showed such disdain, showed some typical clothing of the era from when the 'Geneva' and KJV were translated. I also did a quick search of the KJV and did not find a single reference to "pants", "dress" or "shirt", as referred to clothing, anywhere in the version, let alone some '"modest" shirt or dress' contrasted with any "immodest" one. Further, the times "skirt" was used, as referring to attire, all referred to men and God, wearing a skirt of some sort, not women. (Ru. 3:9; I Sa. 15:24; 24:4,5,11; Ps. 133:2; Ez. 5:3; 16:8; Hag. 2:12; Zech. 8:23) In other words, you made the statement, above. I ask where is the Scripture to back up your statement? Fair question??
I admit 'challenging" your statement about footwear where I made the remark below, after your statement.

"No where in that text do you read that the toe part is opened. It simply states that the sole was fastened to the foot. Now, I don't want to get technical with you, they may have wornopen-toed shoes, but I guarantee you that they didn't wear them with the provocative attire worn today, and they didn't wear them to God's House."

While I am not suggesting any such "provacative attire", I find it interesting that anyone would claim to know what the footwear styles were of 2000 years ago. (Actually, maybe "judgmental" is a more descriptive and accurate term than "interesting"!)

How in the world, can you possibly claim to know what women or men, wore in footwear, in the Biblical and early Christian days? There was no "shoe store" on the corner, and most had but one or maybe two sets of footwear, at best, and these had to be made by hand. And they certainly did not function as any "solid shoe", of today, to say the least. Why do you think that there is mention of "footwashing" in Scripture? This was not merely "symbolic", as some would suggest, nor any "church ordinance", as I see it, but was a "Bible custom" that was necessary, because the feet were getting 'dirty'. (Gen. 18:4; 43:24; Jd. 19:21; Lk. 7:38,44; Jn. 13:5:15; I Tim. 5:10) I am a farmer, and am working in 'dirt' all the time. I wear leather 'boots'. My feet don't get dirty, on a regular basis, even so. They 'sweat' and certainly stink, but are not 'dirt covered, after a day's work. When I sometimes wear the Chuck Taylor canvas BB shoes, I spoke of earlier, which, incidentally, I wear for the same reason as you wear the sandals, for 'ventilation', that is not the case, as my feet do get dirty, then.
Back to Scripture.
In fact, the 'prodigal son' apparently had no shoes, or at least they were about gone, likely was barefoot, and probably was 'wearing rags', by the time he returned to the father, for two of the first things the father did when he saw the son returning was to get him a robe and shoes. (Lk. 15:22) Only after that, did he feed his starving son. (Lk. 15:16,17,23)

I did read the response to C4K, earlier in this post, and also where you wrote these words.

" Personally, I wear flip flops and I wear sandals. I don't wear flip flops in public, but I'll wear sandals. They cover my foot with ventilation. But, you won't catch me wearing any of that to church -- that would be slouchy. You don't wear to church what you would wear at home. By doing so, you're saying that your home and your daily activities is just as important as God's House and worshiping Him"

I disagree, obviously, with some of this, as I stated. And the reason has nothing to do with any attire, but the 'attitude' that "going to church" somehow equals "entering God's house". I gave verses of Scripture that tell us that, in this present "dispensation of the grace of God", "we" are God's temple(I Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20), the tabernacle (II Cor. 5:1,4; II Pet. 1:13,14), and God's building (I Cor. 3:9), and not the historic structure that I attend on a regular basis, where our local church meets. Were that structure to be destroyed in a fire or an earthquake, for example, the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church would not be affected in any way, but financially, due to the need to erect another facility. In fact, a windstorm ripped off the roof of that building one Friday, a year and a half ago, and the congregation met as usual that Sunday AM, under a tarp. The church was not affected, only the building we meet in. Incidentally, I was not there, being in the hospital for surgery, when that happened, so was not there that first week. So I do not "go to church" to enter God's house to worship. Rather I go "in God's house" to the place where our local body meets, to fellowship, and worship with other believers. God's house is me, wherever I am at the moment. I believe James also says something about those wearing 'good clothes' vs. 'poor clothes' to the assembly. (Jas.2) You might consider reading that passage, IMO.

FTR, I have never called anyone a hypocrite in over 6500 BB posts, nor accused any individual of not being modest. (I checked, to be sure.) And I have not suggested you or anyone else on this thread does "modern theology", either, whatever that pejorative phrase was designed to mean.

I have been "contending for the faith" for over 40 years (or at least that has been my intention, and, incidentally, with a KJV for almost 30 of those years, until mine was stolen a decade ago) which is well over twice as long as you have actually lived on this earth, and is maybe four times as long as you have been a Christian, if you happened to have been saved at the age of seven.

This is an open forum, and you certainly have every choice to ignore what I or anyone else say. But I would urge you to actually read the Scriptures I posted, and see if I have misrepresented them in any way. Be a Berean, and we may discuss this further, if you so choose.

Incidentally, I do not often do 'short, snappy posts', where real issues are concerned, as a rule.

I'm going to bed, for it is now 4 hrs. past my bedtime.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

... but the God out of the King James Bible would not allow a women to be dressed in none other than a skirt and a free-flowing "modest" shirt or dress and the man in pants and a "modest" shirt.

Could we have a little KJV support for these specifics please? Other than the word "modest" I don't see the other ideas in my KJV.

 

[Beth]

I have no idea

I know this is going to cause controversy but I am going to ask it anyway.

Why? if a woman does not want to draw attention her body, would she wear a skirt with a long slit or a low cut dress?

Why? if a woman is offended by ooglers, would she wear tight clothes that show every curve she has?

I think it is very hypocritical for a woman to go out of her way to dress sexy, and then act offended when she is noticed. Or does it depend on just WHO it is that is noticing her? Maybe she is not offended by certain people that she is attracted to. After all, if she is dressing in this manner then it must be to get someone's attention.

And for the record, some men are guilty of the same thing, they can dress immodestly also, although it is not as common as with the women in today's culture.

AJ

I have no idea to the answers to your questions. In my church, here in New Hampshire, we just don't see the women dressing the way you are describing. We are pretty a pretty conservative bunch, us New Englanders.

Shane, you are a young guy, and obviously very zealous to do what you consider to be the right thing...sometimes, though, in our zeal, we err on the side of judgment, rather than mercy. If you are intent on following the Scriptures, then I suggest you pay particular attention to what Ed Sutton has written. He is your older brother/father in the faith, and certainly is to be respected. Why not prayerfully search out the Scriptures he has shown you and test them to see if what Ed posts is true?

 

[ajg1959]

I have no idea to the answers to your questions. In my church, here in New Hampshire, we just don't see the women dressing the way you are describing. We are pretty a pretty conservative bunch, us New Englanders

What about out in public in general?

Just because we are not in church doesnt mean its ok to dress to more loose standards.

And New Englanders are conservative?

I have been to New England, even attended church there. The IFB church that I attended there was no more conservative than the IFB church I attend here in the South, but when I walk out of the church building down here, I dont see gay activity like men holding hands and kissing on the streets......I did see that in New England.

AJ

 

[Brother Shane]

Post #1

menageriekeeper... Are you seriously asking me for scripture to defend your not dressing up for the King? I'll tell you what, and this may come as a shock to you, but I wear the same thing to church. Yes ma'am! I wear the same nice, button up white t-shirt with the same nice pair of bluejeans with my belt and boots (from Wal-Mart) every single Sunday and Wednesday. Those clothes are reserved specifically for church! Those clothes take me about 5 minutes to put on and adjust (put on belt, tuck in shirt, etc.) while my regular clothes take less than a minute. I know when I take time out of my day to set aside for nothing but God, I am going to look nice. I know when I walk into that church house, I'm going to look different than I did at home.

I wouldn't dare wear my daily clothes to church! What are you telling God? Maybe the question is... what do you think you're telling God?

You know, you and God can have this "compromise" or "understanding" all you want to, but I can't find one reason why He would like for us to just come as we are every other day, yet when it's time for a wedding, or time for us to go out and eat. etc, we can dress up. Look, I'm not saying that dressing up is in the Bible and I'm not saying it's not because frankly, I don't need the Bible to tell me to dress up and show God how much He means to me Amen, I do it! I have so much love for God in my heart that I can't help but show my respect when I walk in that church house by not only dressing up, but singing praises unto Him and praying and thanking Him and telling Him how much He means to me! You don't think I'd look a little hypocritical telling Him how much He means to me when I dressed in the same clothes I go to Wal-Mart in... and me being in His House?!


You know, menageriekeeper, maybe it's just a personal thing, because I sure hope so! Maybe it's just my outpouring of love and gratitude and thankfulness and rejoicing and respect and reverence I have for Him that I can't help but dress up for Him Amen! I don't see why anyone else can't! Do you want to know why I can't?


Because they can go everywhere else and dress up Amen, but when they walk into God's House they want to be slouchy and lazy with what they wear Amen and they think God will understand their laziness Amen that when they walk into a fine dining restaurant they're wearing their finest clothes avaliable.... AMEN!


Now that's just the cold hard truth! It's a shame when people think God is going to side with them over such issues that just require respect for Him! I can't believe you asked me for scripture... I can't! I just know if you love God you'd do it and there would be NO QUESTIONS! Maybe if you dressed in your farm clothes at a wedding or at that movie theater or at that funeral or at that job interview I'd shut up, but I'm sure you would have said that in your last post had that been the case.


Now, I read your post again and I see you talk about the moment you were saved that you weren't wearing nice clothes... I'm just going to tell you to get relevant, OK? Now, that wasn't necessary. We're talking about church clothes, not home clothes, and fine clothing has never been a requirement for salvation, OK? I think I have to side with you on this one... some of my best praying is done when I'm in bed in the morning and night, yes ma'am you got that down pat, but my best at showing honour, respect, love, and gratitude for my Saviour is at Fort Necessity Baptist Church dressed in clothes set aside just for Him... looking my best. Amen! And let me touch another issue, please... when did I say that it had to be Macy's? You're talking to a poor man if you want me to afford Macy's. Look, if you wear scrubs like me 6 days out of the week all you need is a button up shirt and blue jeans to be your nicest. It's all what you can afford. God knows what you can and can not do.


About your dad, man He seemed like a good one on that dressing up issue. He wore the same thing I wore... good ole pair of jeans (I'm sure his top was nice too) Ain't nothing' wrong with that! I ain't trying to convince you of nothing menagerie other than how we could show respect for God more than we do!


Now, you said something that stuns me. I'll even quote it...

Maybe because, my granddaddy, who was also a Freewill preacher, has already convinced me that it is what is inside the man that God cares about and not how the outside is covered.

Check out Proverbs 7:10 - "And behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart."


I can't stand hearing "it's whats on the inside that counts, not the outside!" Well I'm going to have to ask you for scripture please, because the scripture I have tells me otherwise. Let's read Matthew 5:6 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in Heaven."


Did God not say attire? Do I see attire in that scripture? HE DOES CARE HOW ONE DRESSES! We aren't concerned with how that one is dressed right now, that isn't the issue, it's that He does look at how we dress! That's contrary to what your granddad taught you! If He didn't, he wouldn't have said 1 Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." Let's go on over to Deuteronomy 22:5 and see where God talks to the Jewish about their wear... Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." You'll find more in I Peter 3:3 - "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." I Corinthians 11:14 talks about men with long hair... I Corinthians 11:14 - "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Can't you say God does have an interest in how we dress and carry ourselves on the outside as well?