Women, pants, KJVO and conservatism

I asked the question on the other thread because it seems that those who are the most vocal on the ladies-anti-pants issue are also those who are most vocal on the KJVO issue. There seems to be a link between the two, at least from an outsider's point of view.

It seems that "opinions" take the place of Biblical fact, and this just isn't right. I have an opinion, but just because someone doesn't necessarily agreee, that doesn't make them evil. Now, if we're talking about how you are saved, there is only one way. But if we're talking dress, my opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses. But, I will not force mine on others.

I guess that's what bothers me - those who try to force me to agree and abide by their opinions.

BTW-Thanks for the post!

 

:applause:

Good post Dale.

 

You know what has amazed me in our Bible studies that Barry has here on Wednesday nights? The fact that there is a great deal of what we believe the Bible says about some things which are simply tradition and the Bible does not mention them at all! Some fast ones:
-- the idea that Mary ever rode in on a donkey
-- the idea of three Wise Men
-- the idea that there was no rain before the Flood
-- the idea that the sticks and rods Jacob peeled were what produced spotted or speckled lambs.

There are so many more examples of things I have heard for years in sermons, conversations, etc. Not things to do with basic salvation, but so much of the detail stuff the Bible presents gets buried in traditional ways of thinking about it that I think we get some really wrong pictures in our heads.

It does take trust to go back just to the Bible and be willing to learn all over again, but it's a fascinating trip, too. Sometimes it involves digging into the original languages and sometimes it just means looking at the basic text again to see what it is actually saying.

I think for many people it is much more comfortable to ride along on the legalism road where their behavior and dress and such are defined by certain sets of rules than to try to understand what the Bible is actually saying. With dress, for example, we know that modesty is required. But exactly what modesty is for any given culture is different. There was a time in Europe that to show the ankles was, for a woman, practically a declaration that she was a prostitute. However bare shoulders and a deep cleavage were considered normal! I don't think I would be comfortable with that at all, but then, I am a product of this culture.

 

Can we add anti-CCM in there too.
I think there is another problem, maybe a little deeper than conservatism...It is Legalism.

Some, not all, want to bind believers to their legalistic standards and are not happy unless everyone around them are as legalistic as they are.

They see themselves as right, and condemn everyone else as wrong.
And of course, legalism is based in pride.

You can feel proud when you can check off your legalistic list.

"KJVO... check
My wife doesn't wear pants.... check
I only listen to hymns.... check
I don't read PDL.... check

Yep, I am a good Christian. At least that is what my pastor says..."

You forget, that the whole time you are checking off your dos and don'ts, Christ is standing at the door ready to set you free from the bondage you are enslaved to. It is called "Grace"

 

Bro Dale,
Our Grandfathers and Fathers must have been wrong on the subject back in the 50's,60's and 70's. They were conservative and were thinking they were "holding the line" on those subjects when all others were "falling away". What do you think?

Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

Bro. Dale,
I just saw the pic for the first time. Beautiful Baby! Good thing the mother's likeness comes through. Go ahead......hijack your own thread and tell us all about the baby. I'll bet your dad is just settin' down the order with all the help around, He's first and all others WAIT!

Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

Hello Dale,


Long time no chat. My brother-in-law and I talk about KJVO at times. He is very KJVO and I am not. I do love KJV and I think it is one of the best translations. We both have conservative bible views. But as you have just shown above, we have diffrent standards of tradition. My brother-in-law holds to pretty much what you posted above...plus no TV, not just dresses only, but dresses to the ground only. They are home schoolers (another link), ladies have long hair ONLY way past their shoulders, ladies do not work outside the home, ..etc.

My brother-in-law sent me these links below. The writer of these links, groups conservative Bible believers into fundy groups.

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3928
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3947
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3971


The writer has very simple lables of A,B or C. What is funny is I have the same groups , but gave them NAME lables. The 3 groups ...hyper-fundamentalist, cardinal-fundamentalist, and open-fundamentalist. But the lines are drawen close to where the writer above draws them. I think its a good study, and helps us understand each other, if others would care to read the links.

I want to throw this out. I have often seen a insightful link to tradition and a translation, and the RCC and latin. For 100s of years the RCC said Latin was sacred and how the Bible was "handed down" to us. Now English is the scared translation in the KJVO camp. Your thoughts?

I should add...Years ago I was a KJVO. Well...more like TR only. I still use and carry KJV but it is not the only one I use.

I would also have to agree with Tim and anti-CCM, if in fact they bam CCM because of taste....or ban because.."this is the way we always sing". Or "because hymns just sound more holy". This is the most wildly held view by those that like CCM toward others that do not like CCM. However, most people I talk to that do not like it, see other reason not to like it. Like watered down message.

PDC churches...the same thing. If you do not like PD only because it is new, you are worship of tradition. If you see PD as focus on the world and not God, then that is another matter.

But Tim is right in that these things can fall within worship of tradition.

 

Those old sermons on a woman's role in the family, how they were to live before the world and conservative viewpoints on personal holiness and family were based on the scripture and that gave them a reason or purpose to preach them. Were those reasons and purposes wrong?

Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

Some very good points have been brought to the table for discusson which I agree with. The worship (per se) of tradition for the sake of tradition is obviously wrong. Jesus had a scathing rebuke for the Pharisees for just this reason. But it is NOT legalism. So many Christians, even Baptists (who should know better) are mistaken about exactly what Legalism is.

What most of you guys/gals are talking about is Phariseeism, not legalism. And at the other end of the swinging pendulum is Sadduceeism. The one, Pharisee, is one who has standards so high for holiness that God himself would not condone. Nay, in fact God himself in the person of Jesus rebuked them for it. We know it as self-righteousness. And God hates it.
Sadducees on the other hand, held tenaciously to the Talmud and no other Scripture. They were of the priestly class and therefore looked down upon all who were not "high borne". They collaborated with the Romans and denied the resurrection. They were proud, arrogant and bigoted. Our modern day equivalent would be they who hold that one must have a PHD or DD in order to teach or understand Scripture, or one must "know the Greek" to understand the "nuances" of the Scripture. These were snobs and they still exist today in our circles.
A legalist is simply one who adds the keeping of the Law of Moses to the requirment for Salvation. Paul had strong words for these folks in the letter to the Galatians.


Please, keep your terminology straight from here on out, won't you?

Are there Pharisees in the camp? Sure there is. There is also quite a large number of Sadduccees. I haven't met many legalists. SDA's come to mind, as do the WWCOG, but not many others.

 

Then you put your own constraints on the Holy Spirit.
If one believes that he is led by the Holy Spirit to preach on modesty, and believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to a place where he can adequately draw a line where modesty stops and begins according to the Word of God, then (as the Bible says) "Who art thou that judgest thy brother?" There is a matter of soul liberty in this area. As a Baptist you have just denied that very beloved principle to others. You don't believe it is right for pastors to preach on women wearing pants. That is your opinion and you state it as if it were a dogma of the pope. It is your opinon and that is all.
Others have other convictions; deeply held convictions which they believe are Scripturally based. These aren't traditions, and are not to be compared to either legalism or Pharsaism, but rather a matter of holiness and sanctification.
Again: "Who art thou that judgest thy brother?"
We all have deeply held convictions. One can't come straight out and say that they are wrong, simply because you believe you are right.
"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

I want to back up to the original post in this thread. To bash the notion of being conservative because it tries to conserve the status quo is a bit harsh. There are times (most I would argue) that being conservative, whether in politics of the church, is the proper course of action.

For example, it is conservative to believe that a gender neutral Bible is wrong. It is conservative to believe that there is one way to Heaven- through the shed blood of Christ Jesus. It is Conservative to believe that one should abstain from immoral behavior. Yet, I doubt any one of us would argue that these positions are wrong.

When it comes to the skirt/pants issue it is more a matter of personal belief, the congregation we are a part of, and personal comfort that reigns supreme. Personally, I would rather see every woman wearing a dress and every man wearing a coat and tie when they attend church services. To me it isn't a matter of being necessary according to the Bible, because I don't believe it is. However, I see the idea that we need to change to be a minor spirit of rebellion. There was nothing wrong with the way things were, people wanted to change just for the sake of change and to prove that they weren't tied to the legalistic demads of a church. But, I know that it isn't worth my breath. In the very conservative church I attend i am often the only person under 60 that is wearing a coat and tie (other than those in the pulpit of course). Most of the women of all ages are wearing pants. I don't see that it changes the service or the intention of the congregation in any way.

How about just allowing those that wish to stick to these traditions to do so. Until they show up at your house telling you what to wear, I don't think it really matters.