-
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!
should women wear dresses/skirts all the time
- Thread starter Barbara R.
- Start date
Old Missionaries to tribes in Africa years ago can attest to the fact that when the natives got saved, one of the first things they wanted to do was cover up. No more loin cloths and no more exposed bosoms. Something about being born again gave them a sudden sense of modesty.
I agree Aaron, Liberty does not apply to areas of clear biblical truth.
Modesty, Distinction, Protection The at least 2 perhaps 3 biblical purposes of clothing.
I try to avoid wearing my bikini and thong to church. I feel it would be a distraction to a proper attitude of Worship, and for all the wrong reasons
The appeals to nature in Scripture are not the laws of physics as most assume, they are to natural law, or moral law. That's what most people are talking about when they say stuff about "common sense."
"Who told thee that thou was naked?" And yet somehow Adam and Eve knew and made clothes for themselves, though their clothes didn't meet God's righteous standards and He made them such as did.
So, nature, or natural law, holds even the heathen, who have not the law, accountable and without excuse. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
Exegesis.
But that brings us to another Scriptural reason for clothing. The Fall.
Excellent!
I try to avoid wearing my bikini and thong to church. I feel it would be a distraction to a proper attitude of Worship, and for all the wrong reasons
I leave my "Honk if you love Jesus" Speedo at home for the same reasons.
So far we have the Fall, Modesty, Common Sense or Nature, Distinction and Protection.
What else?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Vanity...
How about pajamas?
The operative phrase : That which is appropriate.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Well, we're not really arguing propriety here. We're arguing morality. Nevertheless, if you had the choice between the aforementioned swimwear and pajamas, which would be more appropriate?
I certainly hope you aren't equating the propriety of the two.
That's certainly a carnal principle in clothing. What I meant by Scriptural principles is that which God has said are the right reasons, but one certainly needs to know the right reasons in order to rightly judge vanity.
So far, we have the reasons that people must dress...
The Fall
Natural Law
...and the criteria we must use to design and choose dress
Modesty, Distinction and Protection.
Now here is an easy question. Who determines the standard of modesty, distinction and protection? God or man?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were looking for reasons that some people dress immodestly.
God determines the standard - Man determines their own definition of modesty and the appropriateness (rightly or wrongly - this is usually the way it is done).
§ue
That really is the only question. The rest of it is pretty straightforward. Application always causes the most trouble, at least if you are concerned with being consistent and holding to what the Word actually teaches. An all too uncommon practice.
As far as pajamas, Mine are definitely not appropriate for church. But that is a whole other topic
My 3 year old daughter takes an afternoon nap on Sunday. Our service starts at 5pm, and many times my wife wakes her up and carries her to the car. She goes in the nursery in her PJ's. If we are going to speak about the morality of our dress standards, I am not sure PJ's would be disqualified for church, as long as they are modest, and they are not representative of the practice of transvestism.
(BTW, my PJ's are disqualified by the first principle, not the second
) PJ's are an extreme example. A few weeks ago, I got called into work at 5 am on Sunday. I went straight from work to the morning service and sat in the back in my Jeans and sweater. IMO there is more spiritual value in that, than in going home simply because I am not wearing the traditional sunday morning dress of a suit and tie. The desire to be in fellowship with other believers is important, more so than whether I pull out the bow tie like Dr. Bob. But your mileage may vary, especially if dress is the way your church determines spirituality.
I'm not sure what they want. Since all their posts have been in baptist only and they aren't baptist I'm thinking troll.Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Do they want to know what size dress you wear? Maybe they're researching a Christmas present, Donna!
(I don't know anything about this. We have some who are getting emails off of some people's posts and sending unwanted messages)
Thankfully I have my email set where only mods and adminstrators can see it.
Okay, we're all pretty much agreed that God is the One who determines the standards of modesty, distinciton and protection. And, we're all pretty much agreed that God would not approve of swimwear in church.
The interesting thing to point out is that this agreement exists despite the lack of any straitforward description of that standard in the Bible. There's nothing that explicitly describes how much of our bodies should be covered by clothing.
Now all I said is that the standard is not explicit. That certainly doesn't mean that it isn't implied somehow. I believe that it is implied, and so do you. You've shown that by your answers to my questions.
The charges of legalism when one attempts to glean God's will from the Scriptures about dress, I believe, are false and unfair. Legalism is nothing more than the doctrine that says we are justified by the works of the Law. And who made that assertion?
There's no such thing as MY standard or YOUR standard. It's God's standard, and we have duty to find out what it is. No one is allowed the privilege of having his own private interpretation of the Scripture. The meaning is either universal, or it's meaningless.
So discussions like this are not only needed, especially today when teenage girls are being taught to dress like prostitutes, but dutiful.
An interesting side note. I live in the low rent district. (Not because I'm tight with money, though I am, but because that's all I can afford.) About a year ago I saw a prostitute on Independence Ave. (They're usually more west on that road, but they're working their way east.) The only way I knew it was a prostitute was because she was walking back and forth along a segment of the avenue looking and trying to make eye contact with the drivers. But what was different about her short shorts and the tight T-shirt revealing her midriff than in what I've seen the teenage girls at the mall wearing?
Nothing.
I saw her there almost everyday for a week on my way home from work, so I began to pray for her. My prayer was specifically that the Lord would send a Godly minister who knew how to minister specifically in this situation, and saw her the next week talking to a well-dressed, well-groomed man (not the norm in my neighborhood) in plain sight on the busy street. She appeared to be unloading. I haven't seen her since.
I also prayed that I would hear her testimony after she was saved, and am still expecting the answer to that one.
The interesting thing to point out is that this agreement exists despite the lack of any straitforward description of that standard in the Bible. There's nothing that explicitly describes how much of our bodies should be covered by clothing.
Now all I said is that the standard is not explicit. That certainly doesn't mean that it isn't implied somehow. I believe that it is implied, and so do you. You've shown that by your answers to my questions.
The charges of legalism when one attempts to glean God's will from the Scriptures about dress, I believe, are false and unfair. Legalism is nothing more than the doctrine that says we are justified by the works of the Law. And who made that assertion?
There's no such thing as MY standard or YOUR standard. It's God's standard, and we have duty to find out what it is. No one is allowed the privilege of having his own private interpretation of the Scripture. The meaning is either universal, or it's meaningless.
So discussions like this are not only needed, especially today when teenage girls are being taught to dress like prostitutes, but dutiful.
An interesting side note. I live in the low rent district. (Not because I'm tight with money, though I am, but because that's all I can afford.) About a year ago I saw a prostitute on Independence Ave. (They're usually more west on that road, but they're working their way east.) The only way I knew it was a prostitute was because she was walking back and forth along a segment of the avenue looking and trying to make eye contact with the drivers. But what was different about her short shorts and the tight T-shirt revealing her midriff than in what I've seen the teenage girls at the mall wearing?
Nothing.
I saw her there almost everyday for a week on my way home from work, so I began to pray for her. My prayer was specifically that the Lord would send a Godly minister who knew how to minister specifically in this situation, and saw her the next week talking to a well-dressed, well-groomed man (not the norm in my neighborhood) in plain sight on the busy street. She appeared to be unloading. I haven't seen her since.
I also prayed that I would hear her testimony after she was saved, and am still expecting the answer to that one.
The accepted norms of dress depend heavily on the cultural context. That is why our mostly American Christian group here would agree on a basic level of what is or is not modest. And I would still say that swimwear is an extreme example, not very useful when it comes to defining what is and is not modest.
The word I would use would not be implied, since I don't see any implied standard so clearly defined in the text, I would use the word indoctrinated. It fits what is actually causing the agreement better
The word I would use would not be implied, since I don't see any implied standard so clearly defined in the text, I would use the word indoctrinated. It fits what is actually causing the agreement better
Perhaps the natives wanted to wear clothes because they wanted to be like the missionaries.
Perhaps getting saved meant becoming like the missionaries.
Being naked isn't in and of itself sinful. Knowing your naked because you sinned against God in the garden is something altogether different.
What is sinful about certain styles of clothing is: 1.) immodest clothing that is sexual and suggestive in nature, and 2.) clothing that eliminates gender distinctions.
Not wearing clothes in certain situations might be more modest than wearing thongs and bikinis!
Perhaps getting saved meant becoming like the missionaries.
Being naked isn't in and of itself sinful. Knowing your naked because you sinned against God in the garden is something altogether different.
What is sinful about certain styles of clothing is: 1.) immodest clothing that is sexual and suggestive in nature, and 2.) clothing that eliminates gender distinctions.
Not wearing clothes in certain situations might be more modest than wearing thongs and bikinis!