Modesty

[Gwyneth]

LOL, I quite agree with Ann, the hose is an evil invention by satan to torture women.

The best use for them is to replace, temporarily, a broken fan belt in the car engine........ oh` and tying up plants in the garden.:laugh:

 

[nunatak]

Before salvation, yes, you would be right, but not after, or else Jesus is lying when he proclaims,"Enter into my rest,thou good and faithful servant"

The light of His countenance upon our lives in blessings which this world cannot understand.

Since our sacrifice is not equal with our obedience, then we can assume there is reward for obeying the Lord, especially in the area of salvation, then later, service.

Yep, couldn't have said it any better myself.

I don't understand the point about "Entering into my rest." Are you saying that when Christ says that, we are no longer unprofitable? And when does Christ say that? I assummed that Christ would say "Well done" at his Judgement seat.
I do believe that believers are blessed, and in ways the world cannot understand.

I have a difficult time saying we are blessed due to our obedience. Lets assume that we are blessed based on our obedience. Is this obedience with respect to lining up to standards of dress, the point of this thread? And even if we are blessed with all heavenly blessings because we line up to standards of an outward dress code, whose code? Mine? My pastor's? I think your response would be "Scripture." Then if I have to line up to Scripture with respect to modesty in the outer man, where do I find more in Scripture than that which deals with the heart?

This brings to mind the Pharisees. They gave tithe of all. Fasted. Prayed. Look at Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Unless our righteousness exceeds theirs, we cannot see heaven.

Christ is our righteousness. Period. Therefore, to those of us who are convicted that something is unclean, to him it is unclean. As for me,

Rom 14:13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.
Rom 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean.

 

[rbell]

Yup, at 52 years old I have no problems with immodestly dressed women. Yeah, right.

No one is excusing immodesty, it is the ranting and raving, and trying to define modesty according to his own definition is a problem.

We men, older or teen, have a responsibility - "I have made a covenant with my eyes. Why then will I look on a young woman?"

Best quote of the thread.

One can be against immodesty without showing contempt and hatefulness toward the other person.

Or....at least....one should.....

 

[menageriekeeper]

WoooHoooo! this thread has taken off! :laugh:

I'm still responding to Shane's two, now three lengthy posts, but I gotta say from the sound of post #125, he's not really listening to me. Either that or he's even more dyslexic than I am, but I'll deal with his twisting of my posts as I go on.

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.

It's never been a scriptural requirement for church going either. Just because one day someone decided they could afford to have a set of clothes just for church and the majority of folk jumped on the band wagon, doesn't mean we have to stay there. OK?

But MY normal clothes are from Walmart, so in order for me to wear something better, I would have to shop a better store: Macy's. See, what you have been saying is that I should dress up to go to church and not wear to church what I wear daily. Now personally, I could afford Macy's if I wanted to. I don't believe that would be a good use of the money God gives me, so I don't. But you are telling me that I should present to God the best I can afford in the way of church clothes.

Ain't happening! The money I would spend on clothes at Macy's is better spent providing food for our food bank or given into our benevolent fund. Clothes, my friend, do not give a clear picture of thankfulness nor respect. All our clothes are filthy rags in His sight. What I wear in worship is fully covered up by the sight of Christ standing in front of me.

Now one day, God will present me with spotless garments. At that point, He'll care what I wear. Until then He cares only what Christ is wearing in my stead.

I should say here that something about the way I copied and separated your post did weird things to the bolding. I haven't the patience to figure it out.

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!

Here's one of the reasons I believe you are skimming my posts and not reading them with the idea of understanding what I am saying. I never in my post said anything at all about what my dad wore to church. I talked about his car, I talked what I was wearing when I was saved, what I wear now to church and I talked about what my Granddaddy wore to church and elsewhere, but I haven't said a thing about my dad's clothing!

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."

I can't fix the quotes here either. both of the above should be one quote.

How about you explaining to me just who in this passage (the Proverbs one) is speaking and do you really think they were in church? Ya don't usually meet to many harlots in church and if'n you did it would be more God honoring to tell such a one of Christ's sacrifice than it would be to tell her she wasn't welcome until she changed her clothes. And if you think you can't tell folks such as that by your ATTITUDE think again. Remember, a haughty look is one of the 7 things God hates. Reread that Matthew passage you quoted above. I believe this is talking about being Christlike in attitude, not dress. (It would be immodest of me to dress as Christ, seeing as I am a woman.)

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?

Yes, yes, yes. No one is arguing this point with you. We should as Christians, dress in such a way as to bring honor to the Lord, but who says it should end at the church door? Should we not always dress modestly? Or should we wear our burkas to church and our blue jeans around the farm.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Funny that you don't give me another option in your arrogant list of reasons to sit on the first pew! I sit there so I'm not distracted. Did you copy that? I bet when you go to a concert you want to be on the first row... don't you? Why is it any different in God's House? Well, after all, I guess it would be with you because I doubt you'd wear your farm clothes to a concert anyway. I want to be there so I can get the best seat... you stay focused. You feel the heat coming off the preacher, so to speak, lol.

Now Shane, I know you are young, but you are not so young as to have not learned how to pay attention. This is a matter of self control. Do you not pay attention to you job, despite the distraction of the snack machine in the corner? Do you not pay attention to your teacher's lectures, despite the distraction of a sunny spring day? Get real.

If you consider everything between you and the pastor to be distracting, then you either have a self control problem or a simple lack of tolorance (meaning you could control the impact of the distractions of other church members but you choose not too!)

I saw as much leg as I needed to see. I saw enough leg to say it was all, OK? It doesn't need to be 100% all of her leg for it to be immodest, does it? I called it a trash bag because it was slouchy. It looked like it needed to be in the trash. And yes, the thing hugged her "other parts" of her body so much that I was embarrassed for the girl to even get out of her seat. Maybe a trash bag would have been more modest... maybe the commercial kind my school uses... heavy duty too to make sure it's all covered!

See this is just condescending. I doubt this young lady was trying to dress to please YOU. She has a husband to answer to. If he was happy, you should have been or you should have approached and elder member and handled the offense Biblically.

Why would I recognize her role as a mother? I didn't know the woman, never seen her before, and to be correct, I never saw her child. Nor did she come back for church that night. The nerve of some people, huh? It's not my duty to recognize her role of a mother. In fact, while we're on this issue, how come you observe mother's day when that's no where in scripture and they want to bring it into the church, yet you need scripture to dress up for the King? You'll dress up for mother's day, though. You'll dress up for yourself and everyone else, but not the King. I'm puzzled.

Just what about a bare-back to I find distressing? The same reason I find bare-legs, bare-stomach, bare-breasts, and so forth distressting... NAKEDNESS! Do you think God would approve of you going around dressed like that? Why uncover the back? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? DID YOU HEAR??? WHY??!!


So you're telling me that an uncovered back is okay just because it won't cause a man to stumble? Well, it causes me to stumble. Know why? Because an uncovered woman goes against God's law. That's why! Do I need a better reason? I don't think 1 Timothy 2:9 allowed the exception of the back, do you? I'd hate to know it thought the naked back was modest. Actually, that would contradict the whole verse!


What I find disturbing is your alleged claim that I may find a bare-back "sexual" in a "small child." Ma'am, I'll ask that you refrain from such comments. I never once said that the child's dress ran "sexually" through my head yet I said that it was wrong and I pitied the mother. In fact, I even refuted donnaA's claim that I "ogled" the girls. That comment was out of line totally! No evidence supported your allegation when actually it shot it down.

DonnA covered this quite well so I see no reason to repeat her wise instruction.

Really? How about "honor your mother and father so your life will be long in the land". Not Biblical indeed!

Off topic! This part of the discussion was held earlier! We are now on to the issues of modesty and nakedness!

Shane honey, pick up your Bible and find me a place in the Bible where nakedness refers to a bare back. When Noah lay naked in his tent, I don't think he got mad at his son for seeing his back!

When the Bible refers to uncovering thighs, well, do you have a clue where you thigh is? Hint: it has nothing to do with the skin on ones back.

You were asked for a scripture that clearly defines naked. Are you ever going to answer?

Any time I hear a young man say he is disturbed by the sight of a child's bare back, I get disturbed. I am glad to hear it wasn't sexual thoughts running through your head, and will apologize if I offended.

However, the scriptural injunctions against nakedness are there to prevent s*xual sin. Thery are not there just cause God decided to give us one more rule.

 

[menageriekeeper]

have defended my idea of why we should dress up for the King. In fact, it took up a whole post. Do you need God to hand feed you every single thing? It's a crying shame when the Christians reach the point that they don't want to dress up for church. Yes, I think it is very wrong for someone to dress up for other events, yet when they go to church, they care less and wear their everyday clothes. Don't dress up for God, wear what you wear everyday. I guess we're just different, eh? And if you (and you do) need scripture to tell you to dress up for church, I don't. I have joy in respecting the Lord by dressing up.

Shane, you can say it is wrong to not dress up all you want to. Saying it doesn't make it so.

I can say that dandelions are lollipops, but it doesn't make it so!

If you want to rant on how shameful it is that Christians no longer feel the need to dress up for church, then you need to show us why it is so. Otherwise folks will disregard your words and rightfully so.

What are you telling God?

1) You said your clothes are modest. I'm glad to find a lady who doesn't wear the pants in her family... literally. Pants are for men. I'm glad your dresses and skirts reach your ankles and you don't paint your face with makeup. I'm glad you don't wear shirts with words written across the breast attracting eyes to that area. In fact, I wonder why we are even having this discussion.

2) I never said to wear anything more affordable by others. Who can't afford to show respect?

3) Mock on.

I think (KNOW) I'm telling God I respect Him greatly. What do you tell that bride when you dress up nicely for her wedding?

Here we go again with you not paying close enough attention to my posts. I never said I don't wear pants, though I don't wear my husband's! Mens pants aren't made for women, I buy from the ladies section at Walmart! And as one who sews plenty of both, don't even try to tell me there is no difference between the two. There is as much difference between men and ladies pants as there was between men and ladies robes.

Covered this in one of my last couple of posts.

Hmmm, as I recall the condescension in this conversation has been coming from your side of the computer. I don't recollect mocking you. Then again, if you consider my complete disagreement with you to be mocking, well it'll just have to be.

Very good, I'm sure God counts it toward you as gain.

Well, my neice is getting married this summer outdoors in the evening in Alabama. I'm thinking I already have a dress (that I found at the thrift store) that will be suitable for that occasion and is also suitable for church and even my every day life. You are not listening. It has been repeated over and over that some of us here already dress daily in a manner suitable for worship.

Am I also telling her that I love her but not enough to go to Macy's to buy a brand new dress for the occasion? Possibly, but if she expects that out of me, she'll have to complain to her Daddy first. He's my big brother and I learned how to be tight fisted with my money from him! :laugh:

Your other 10 minute post...

Go take 10 more minutes and reread that post. Cause there is only one comment in your reply that applies to anything I said:

I don't like it when people say they have different "ways" of doings thing. In this case, if you can't dress up for God yet for other things, something is wrong.

Your not liking something doesn't mean the rest of us should change around to your way of thinking! Shane, do you have a clue of how arrogant you sound? No one care if you like folks having different ways of worshipping. It doesn't matter if you think dressing up is best. Your thoughts are your thoughts and just like armpits, everyone has them! Sometimes they are stinky! You must be able to PROVE your opinion or it is just an opinion and has no authority over the rest of us.

Now for the drivel that was the rest of that post: 1. first you claim I wear dresses and not pants and now you claim I dress like the world. 2. I never defended dressing up for worldly events, and 3. It bothers me that you still can't present scripture that tells us to dress in our best for church yet you expect us to take your word for it.

Now then, I have repeated myself at least half a dozen times today. Can you pick out the places? When you can, grasshopper, you will be ready to snatch the pebble from hand.

:laugh:

Mods, I apologize for the triple post.

 

[Joe]

Yup, at 52 years old I have no problems with immodestly dressed women. Yeah, right.

No one is excusing immodesty, it is the ranting and raving, and trying to define modesty according to his own definition is a problem.

We men, older or teen, have a responsibility - "I have made a covenant with my eyes. Why then will I look on a young woman?"

I agree with you, wise words :thumbs:

I read his ranting and raving but ...well...he is still only 17 years old. Same age as my son.

Maybe we can cut him a little more slack, that's all. Not get as rough with him.

At 52, imo, most men (not all) do not experience near the level of tempation as teenagers do, or even very young adults. Since you said you walk around naked sometimes, your post makes sense. You may be the exception.

Man, did this thread take off while I was at work!!

 

[Joe]

Isaiah 47:2Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
3http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=47&verse=3&version=kjv#3Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet [thee as] a man.

I'd be real careful about taking up an offense for some one else.

Maybe he is honest and fully understands the idealologies of most men

Here's a portion of the word of God with which his statements directly coincide:I Tim 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;

According to the word of God there is an example of what a "true Christian woman" should look like.

When we study the words "modest apparel" we find the meaning of being "loose-fitting and flowing".

This carries the conotation of a measure as to prevent exposing even an outline of those areas most noticed by men, who just so happen to find real women attractive, but do also fall into lustful situations when these areas are revealed in any manner. If this wasn't true, then a "wet teeshirt" contest wouldn't draw so many men to come to view.

A recent instrument for "ladies" apparel outlets has incorporated the use of a camera so the wearer of certain clothiong can see what she looks like as she walks away from those who just might be looking at her backside.

I wouldn't be so naive to even think that a woman who reveals her thighs wouldn't also draw this man's attention, and my attention would not then be noticing her godliness.:wavey:

Studying out Isaiah 47 does nothing but reveal that this nakedness is to her shame and not to her beauty.

Failure to see these verses as if this isn't nakedness as in uncovering the thigh, is directly against the teaching of the word of God.raying:

Sorry Sal for not replying sooner. I guess I missed this earlier, this thread has so many posts.

Thanks for your time. I am going to look into this tonight

Joe

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree with you, wise words :thumbs:

I read his ranting and raving but ...well...he is still only 17 years old. Same age as my son.

Maybe we can cut him a little more slack, that's all. Not get as rough with him.

At 52, imo, most men (not all) do not experience near the level of tempation as teenagers do, or even very young adults. Since you said you walk around naked sometimes, your post makes sense. You may be the exception.

Man, did this thread take off while I was at work!!

First of all, you did not read the whole thread. I NEVER said that, somehow words someone else said were attributed to me.


Secondly, wait until you are 52. I remember being a teen (believe it or not) and at least in my case age does not temper temptation to look. I still must choose not to lets my look linger when I see immodesty. I would think that most 50 year olds will agree with me.

 

[EdSutton]

The Webster dictionary defined skirt as the end of a garment for those scriptures, CK4. The Webster dictionary also defined skirt as a womens garment. That was not in reference to the scriptures posted.

Brother Shane, you agreed to take the footwear issue out of the discussion. I applaud you for this. That is "one down".

How about "skirts". I believe here, in this response to C4K, you just admitted that "skirt" is also not in reference to the Scriptures you have posted, but is "Webster's Dictionary. So can we also take "skirts" and "dresses" off the table, and just leave the clothing question at "modest apparel", as does Scripture?

I'll admit, I find it offensive where the implication of "women's slacks" or "women's pants" are immodest, when they do a much better job of covering up, than do many skirts I have seen over the years. There is a great deal of difference in 'stylish' women's slacks and 'pants suits', than pants that look like a typo when it appears that the word should have been "paints", and simply was misspelled, and/or jeans, where it appears that the wearer, (be it male or female) had to have the benefit of a "shoe horn" just to get into them, and look like a "wardrobe malfunction" waiting to happen. I find this immodesty of "painted on attire" extremely offensive, as well, FTR.

Not one poster on this thread has advocated any such thing, to my knowledge. I'll admit there have been almost ten pages of posts since I carefully read them, least evening, so I could have missed something, here.

However, I still disagree with your premise, even though it keeps popping up in your posts and where my different take, which remains uncommented on, that somehow we "go to church" or "go to God's house" when we meet, as a NT church. The early church did not meet in "God's house", i.e., the Temple, or the Synagogues, which were very much present throughout Acts, but in homes and in the open marketplaces, and such like. Why?? Why did they not build, or attempt to erect any buildings to 'worship in'? Maybe they actually did get what Scripture expresses, in that, "'we' are God's building," and not some stupid pile of bricks, sticks, and mortar. I can take you to many buildings, that once 'housed' churches, in my area, but no longer. They all still 'look' like churches, but there is no church there, of any sort.

Did those churches cease to exist? Actually, some did. But not some others; they just re-located elsewhere. There is and was never anything "holy" about the structure, except that the body met there from time to time.

And I believe it to be extremely arrogant, to even suggest that our structures of today can somehow "house God", who "sits in the heavens, with earth as His footstool" (Isa. 66:1; Ac. 7:49), when as Solomon said, and even the magnifigance of Solomon's temple could not even begin to contain God. (I Ki. 8:27; II Chron. 6:18)

BTW, when no more than my bride and I are together, and that even "at home", even that is a 'cell group', as it were, of the church, for two are gathered together, and "the Lord is in the midst of them", just as when I'm with any other believer. (Mt. 18:20) So by Scripture's declaration, where you are suggesting "at home", to be different from "at church", simply doesn't hold water.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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!

Are you seriously asking me for scripture to defend your not dressing up for the King?

[Snipped]

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?

[Snipped]

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?!

[Snipped]

You know, ... , 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!

Sorry, my young brother. Much of what you are offering throughtout this thread is a double first cousin of the teachings of Gnosticism. They are simply not the teachings of Scripture, unless of course, the Scripture you choose to quote supports the point(s) you are attempting to make, and the standards you are wanting the rest of us to accept. If the Scripture does not support your idea, in your manner of posting here, it simply does not appear to be deemed as relevant. You are also, in effect, claiming to have additional revelation beyond that given in Scripture, as well.

And the sum of which is Gnosticism, not Biblical Christianity.

Ed

 

[donnA]

Originally Posted by Brother Shane
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!

We are supose to take shane's word with no scriptural proof, which is putting him on the level of being scripture, which can not be questioned. Not only that but but we are to be attacked and run down for asking for scripture. What is up with that, testing against scripture is wrong according to shane and we should just beleive him instead.

 

[Beth]

everything must be tested against Scripture

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so

 

[donnA]

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so

Thanks Beth this is the verse I had in mind.
They daily tested what they were being told against scripture to make sure they lined up.
When they don't it's false teaching.
There's something wrong with any christian who does not seek biblical proof, but blindly believes anything and everything that sounds good to them.
Paul commended the Bereans for daily searching scripture to test what they were taught. Now we have a poster who condemns those who want scriptural proof.
Paul wouldn't be commending this poster, all opinion, no scripture.
Scripture not taken out of context, or not added too.

 

[Lyndie]

Hi there, I'm a newbie, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in. I believe in modest dress. My opinion of modest means different things though. To me, it means 'respectful', as in not going in dirty sweats or torn clothing. Not having things showing that shouldn't be, etc. But to me, it also falls under not going to church in a $500.00 suit, or dress with a 3 foot wide hat, then sitting up front for everyone to see how 'godly' you are. Modesty also equals humility.

I heard an example about appropriate dress once from a preacher, and it made alot of sense, and someone else posted something similar too. Let's say a pr*stitute gets saved on a Saturday night by some inner city missionary. Sunday morning she walks in the church, excited to be there. However, her dress is deemed inapppropriate. Do we stuff her in the back pew, do we pull her aside and call her a harlot? Do we tell her she can't come in? Or do we rejoice that she has decided to leave that life and follow Christ? The women can take her aside AFTER service and offer to take her shopping. From what I recall, Jesus LOVED first, then told people to sin no more. To me, judging and pointing fingers is easier than actually DOING something to help.

Someone also said, and I believe it was Bro. Shane, that women didn't wear pants in the bible, well, neither did men. So that argument seems irrelevant. As for being tempted to look, there are some men, that a women could walk in wear a tent, and they would still oggle. The bible say if your eye or hand causes you to sin, then cut it out/off. Seems like it would be the person who is tempted would have the responsibility to prevent themselves from sinning, not laying the blame on the actual thing/person. Nothing can 'make' you sin, except your flesh giving in to said temptation.

 

[donnA]

Good post Lyndie

 

[gb93433]

Let's say a pr*stitute gets saved on a Saturday night by some inner city missionary. Sunday morning she walks in the church, excited to be there. However, her dress is deemed inapppropriate. Do we stuff her in the back pew, do we pull her aside and call her a harlot? Do we tell her she can't come in? Or do we rejoice that she has decided to leave that life and follow Christ? The women can take her aside AFTER service and offer to take her shopping. From what I recall, Jesus LOVED first, then told people to sin no more. To me, judging and pointing fingers is easier than actually DOING something to help.

Funny that you should mention that because a church I was in there was a young man who started coming and then asked to help out with the music. He was not a Christian and became my friend. A few of the deacons complained to me that he had a tatoo and was not a Christian so he should not be helping out with the music. The gentleman was not leading and was not saying anything except to play his keyboard. A few months later he became a Christian and very shortly thereafter started sharing his faith and leading his home. With a period of two months all of his family became Christians. It was exciting to see the transformation.

What those deacons did not know is that a year earlier he had played his keyboard for the singing group at the Super Bowl. He has played with Christian bands and Christian weddings since. That young man today leads the music at another church and is responsible for the discipleship ministry in that church.

 

[donnA]

A non christian should not be serving in the church. This is unbiblical.

 

[Jon-Marc]

A non christian should not be serving in the church. This is unbiblical.

I definitely agree.

 

[Lyndie]

I agree also, but there's probably many people serving who aren't christians.(But thats another thread entirely). What should have happened was the deacon going to the person directly, instead of you and complaining about the tatoo's. The deacon should have asked the musician to acept Christ before he could continue. As for the whole tatoo thing, my church would probably have half the people it does now if those with tatoo's weren't allowed. Wisdom and discerment and love all need to be practiced in matters such as these.