Real Holiness

Lost people come in LOST, not adhering to the dress codes, but after they are saved and under good BIBLE teaching, they should conform to the standards set forth by modest apparel, not what some modernist calls modest apparel who has had their standards lowered by lack of exposure to true holiness.

The church is adoptung worldliness and then calling it modesty.

 

Helen, dear lady, you goofed.

A. B. Simpson never made it to the mission field. You are speaking of Hudson Taylor, who did indeed dress like the Chinese and even adopted a pigtail like the Chinese men. However, (1) the Chinese certainly did pay attention to missionaries who dressed in western clothing--they called them foreign devils and tried to kill them! (2) Hudson Taylor most certainly did believe in personal separation (as most Christians did back then--this is not a 20th century idea), even radically. When he took his first group of missionaries over under the China Inland Mission, he wouldn't even allow them to read novels on the ship!

This CIM strictness continued until the New Evangelical philosophy was announced by Ockenga in the early 1950's (check out his press release). My parents were in CIM boot camp in the 1940's, preparing to go to Tibet as missionaries--of course the Commies took over so I didn't have to be born in Tibet.

The idea that you can't win folk to Christ unless you become just like them is just bogus. In public high school in the 1960's (wasn't that a rush, you other old fogies!) I was made fun of for my family's high standards and because my Dad was a pastor. I didn't "drink, smoke, play cards or chew, or run with them that do." However, one of my buddies from the chess club trusted Christ as Savior and became my best friend, and on occasion I hung out with the guys on the wrestling team and fit in okay.

 

Try starting a thread where you begin with the premise that Christians ought to dress up, not dress down, for church, if possible, coat and tie, and all that stuff, and you'll see the kind of flack you get.

 

Pinoy, just for the record, I like to 'dress up' for church. For me, it is a sign of respect and honoring God. But I absolutely refuse to judge those who do not 'dress up'. I have less of a problem with girls wearing jeans to church than I do with girls wearing skirts and tops which do not meet in the middle or are just a little 'too tight', etc. I don't like to see jeans in church, but that is a 'me' thing and not a biblical thing.

Shiloh, great post! Good point!

John of Japan, actually, it was my husband, Barry, who gave me that information as I typed. He's out getting some stuff done right now but I will show him your post when he gets back. Thank you.

To all: I did a word study on "holy" some years ago, tracking it hundreds of times through the Concordance and then with each Bible passage referenced. I found something that startled me a bit (maybe not you, but it did me...). If, in the OT, anything touched the altar, it was immediately declared holy and dedicated to the Lord, which often meant it was destroyed.

However people were different. People could BECOME holy, which clearly meant 'belonging to the Lord' or 'of the Lord.' As we are transformed by the Holy Spirit into the likeness and image of our Lord Jesus Christ, we become holy. It is not a sudden thing. Yes, we belong to the Lord from the moment of being born again or, as I see it, even when we are conceived until we reach the point where we sin willfully -- but let's not argue all that again...

My point is that although we who are His belong to Him, there is a progression also of becoming holy.

Looks like Barry driving in...just a moment, John...

Barry read your post, John, and apologizes. You are right about the person. But about your high school experience, the point was that you were IN high school! You were with them but not of them. That is the point I was trying to make earlier. Your behavior was not the same as theirs, but you were not so separate that you refused to be on the wrestling team, or refused to play chess, etc. Do you see what I mean? Your life spoke. You did not separate yourself out of a public high school!

 

Well yes, agreed, Helen. But the OP is not about what missiology calls "contextualization," which is the puzzle of how to successfully communicate the Gospel in a foreign culture, thus obeying 1 Cor. 9:19-23.

The question here is about standards of personal separation. This doctrine (which is very common throughout church history, but is now often thought to be strictly 20th cent. Fundamentalist legalism) teaches not that we become holy through keeping rules or paying attention to the outward appearance.

Growing up Fundamentalist (a good name for a book!), I was never taught that holiness would come if I didn't "smoke, drink, or chew, or run with them that do." I was taught that even seeing a harmless movie in a movie house I might see previews of other movies that would tempt me to do wrong. I was taught that smoking harmed the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I was taught by my father (who grew up in an abusive alcoholic's home) that alcohol would harm your body and cause you to harm people. I was taught that if I played with the cards normally used for gambling people might think I gambled and that would hurt my testimony as a Christian and cause a weaker brother to stumble.

In short, I was taught respect--respect for the body God had given me, respect for a holy God, respect for my testimony as a Christian, respect for a weaker brother in Christ. I look on this as good teaching, not evil and legalistic. I thank God for my godly parents and what they taught me.

 

I appreciate what your parents taught you, and why, John.

I grew up in a non-Christian home. Both of my parents smoked, so I grew up hating it! Both drank a little but never abusively, so I never associated it with abuse in a normal situation and a glass of wine is still an occasional pleasure for me. Very occasional, though! I not only saw movies my parents approved of, but had the incredible privilege of being taken by them to see live performances in San Francisco of the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, of Sount of Music, My Fair Lady, Peter Pan, Oklahoma (I grew up in the fifties) and a host of other classics. It was, and is, extremely easy for me to distinguish between performances live or on screen which are delightful entertainment and those which glorify nastier things. We play cards because that is a great time of family fun. I don't consider gambling to be the normal use of cards -- I consider family games to be the normal use of cards. We built houses with them, played "Fish" and "Old Maid" with them and now the 'hot' game when the kids come to visit is one called "Hand and Foot" which leads to a lot of laughter and fun.

One of the consistent comments we get when visitors (from all over the world, who come to talk to my husband about his work) are here is that we have such a peaceful and joyful home -- such a refuge from the world out there.

And that is the way we want it. People leave here physically and spiritually refreshed and mentally challenged if they have been talking to Barry. There are Bible studies here and a lot of laughter and love and talk about the Bible.

This is the world we are part of. We are not of it, but we are in it. We make our home a place of refreshment and peace for those who come, and don't worry about the things that are more often for appearances' sake.

So it is different ways of going. I think God is blessing us both.

 

Sounds like you have a wonderful home and ministry, Helen.

For myself, I do not judge people who do not have the same standards I do. I don't immediately think "sin" (or even "gambling") when I see someone playing with "face cards." (Dad and Mom never knew about when that kid taught me poker. Mom was too busy trying to win the mom to Christ--she took in "strays" a lot.)

In my view, everyone ought to be allowed to have their own personal standards (in matters not mentioned in the Bible) without being called "legalist."

This means that if Hudson Taylor wanted to outlaw novel reading (and I disagree with that) on the boat to China, hey, those missionaries didn't have to join the China Inland Mission! And on the other hand, if SBC pastor Joe Blow believes it is okay to smoke, hey, I'm not going to criticize him to his deacon!

Let each be persuaded in his own mind. But please don't criticize us Fundamentalists (and I don't say you do, Helen) over having high standards. If you do, though, I can take it. I just remember what my father taught me: "Johnny, I would much rather be criticized for having standards that are too high than for having standards that are too low!"

Our holiness comes from the Lord. At the same time, if we separate ourselves to Christ, some of these earthly things will cease to call to us.

 

Let me close my part in this by agreeing with what you have said (although I don't consider our standards lower...smile...) and adding something my father taught us:

There are a bunch of poles in a field. One is upright. The others are all leaning a bit or a lot one way or another. The one that is upright is criticized by all the others for not being like them. They are all 'alike' in that they all lean, no matter which direction. So they ALL are 'against' the one which is upright. The majority....

But one is upright.

We have a choice in life. Upright or leaning.

Personally, I think without the Lord none of us can be upright. I also think that He sort of straightens us up bit by bit so we don't break! So if I am still leaning a bit, I apologize, and I certainly won't judge you!

But if you ever want to learn Hand and Foot....LOL...

 

In line with the OP, in which Rhetorician was asking us Fundamentalists for information (tell me if I got that wrong, Rhetorician, and you were trying to convince us of something) about our doctrine of personal separation (as opposed to secondary separation, which someone mentioned--a completely different subject), here are John R. Rice's principles on the matter:

"These discussions about amusements that are proper for Christians are written on a threefold premise:

First, we believe Christians ought to do everything to the glory of God. We are not our own. It is the Christian's joy to take Jesus Christ into every pleasure, every heart's desire, into every secret of the heart. He is to please God about his amusements.

Second, the Bible has the answer, directly or indirectly, to every problem of right and wrong for a Christian.

Third, serving Christ is a happy business. His yoke is easy! When God says to a Christian, 'No,' it is the way to peace and happiness. Forbidden things are never necessary to happiness but are the way to frustration and disappointment for any child of God.

I wish all my young friends many good times and always in sweet fellowship with the Lord Jesus; good times with no regrets, no sad tomorrows; good times with no reaping of wild oats, no burning of guilty conscience." (Amusements for Christians, Right or Wrong? c. 1955)

 

Helen said:
>>
Pinoy, just for the record, I like to 'dress up' for church. For me, it is a sign of respect and honoring God. But I absolutely refuse to judge those who do not 'dress up'.....<<

That's exactly the point, madam. I believe the previous threads on Christians dressing up for church, if honestly read, was not about 'judging' others who don't, it was about honoring and respecting God, and that there are churches who do have a dress code for members.

At least until some 'feeling-sorry-for-myself' whoever brought up the point about judging, and others chimed in with, 'heck, if I feel like wearing bathroom slippers, I will' or, if 'shorts and tops make me comfortable, then that's what I'll wear', and 'it's not the clothes, it's the heart'. Not verbatim, but words to that effect.

My other question is: why are we so defensive, and immediately feel like we're being judged, or that we're being judgmental ?

 

Because in both cases we often/sometimes are?

HankD