Daniel David
New Member
Helen, the issue of clothes and modesty is addressed in 3 different N.T. letters. I think it is important to know and understand what Paul and Peter were talking about.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Women wearing pants are in sin
- Thread starter Mickes
- Start date
AdoptedDaughter
New Member
And that can be done in pants, no need for dresses or skirts....There's also a problem when your husband tells you how to dress, if you're already doing it modestly...Originally posted by Preach the Word:
However, a woman ought to do everything she can to indicate submission to her husband.
As a betrothed woman, I understand what submission is and isn't.....Submission is allowing the husband to have the last word in decisions, submission is not bowing to every word and command he gives.
~Teresa~
Daniel David
New Member
1. I would not do it.Originally posted by Abiyah:
Hello, Preach. I am wondering: would you do
this? Have you done this? Why would you do
this? What is your biblical precedent for it?
What would you do if the women did not comply?
How would you feel toward them? How would
you assess their spiritual condition?
2. I have not done it.
3. One reason would be to try and alleviate guilt and/or sadness on the part of parents who could not afford the nicer clothes. That is just a possible reason.
4. Seek to remove any and all distractions when people look like they congregate together.
5. It depends if it was a suggestion or a rule (one I would not personally set).
6. Alot can be learned from a person in their attitude toward authority.
Daniel David
New Member
Baptistforever, can you point out where I said a wife/daughter must where a dress at all times?
I believe I said that my wife does wear jeans.
Submission is yielding your rights to your authority. If hubby says dress, it is a dress, otherwise it is sin.
I believe I said that my wife does wear jeans.
Submission is yielding your rights to your authority. If hubby says dress, it is a dress, otherwise it is sin.
However, a woman ought to do everything she can to indicate submission to her husband.
Perhaps forcing our wives to wear maid uniforms will suffice.
Submission is yielding your rights to your authority. If hubby says dress, it is a dress, otherwise it is sin.
If a man says 'perform this sexual act', it is called rape.
A man who subjects his wife to this kind of "authority" is no man. Slavedriver, yes. Man, no.
Men should be more concerned about their own submission than that of their spouses.
[ November 26, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
Perhaps forcing our wives to wear maid uniforms will suffice.
Submission is yielding your rights to your authority. If hubby says dress, it is a dress, otherwise it is sin.
If a man says 'perform this sexual act', it is called rape.
A man who subjects his wife to this kind of "authority" is no man. Slavedriver, yes. Man, no.
Men should be more concerned about their own submission than that of their spouses.
[ November 26, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
Daniel David
New Member
First, I agree that a pastor should not try to dictate what modestly dressed people wear. Does that mean he cannot? No.Originally posted by Abiyah:
If a person dresses modestly, is it the pastor's business to dictate to them what to wear? How did he get such authority?
He gets his authority because God has ordained certain people to (under)shepherd his flock.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
This is clearly speaking of biblical elders. This would obviously mean that you don't obey sin. However, if it is a "right", you need to submit.
I hope that answers your questions.
AdoptedDaughter
New Member
That was in response to the general thread, you know, the one that entitles women wearing pants are in sin?Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Baptistforever, can you point out where I said a wife/daughter must where a dress at all times?
Which, I'm sure, she finds quite comfortable.I believe I said that my wife does wear jeans.
Within reason.Submission is yielding your rights to your authority.
I say, I'm sure you'll look quite nice, I think this pink will look perfect on you!If hubby says dress, it is a dress, otherwise it is sin.
How does "be dressed and be modest and be your own sex" sound?Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Helen, the issue of clothes and modesty is addressed in 3 different N.T. letters. I think it is important to know and understand what Paul and Peter were talking about.
Now, about Christian character, which is far more important....
"A lot can be learned from a person in their
attitude toward authority." I found this final
statement to be of great interest. 8o) And
believe me, this is not pointed to you, Preach,
because I am sure you recognize that you have
no authority over me.
But Ii have found it interesting, in the past, that
there are preachers and pastors who actually
believe that they have an immovable authority
over the persons in their congregations. They
use this assumed "authority" to dictate to the
individuals exactly such things as we are dis-
cussing here--telling people what they may
may not wear, where they may/may not go,
what they may/may not do, etc.
What they do not realize is that when and if they
have any authority at all, it is a gift given them by
the willing submission of a believer to a trusted
leader. When the believer loses trust in that
leader, that leader loses authority, no matter
which party is the one who is wrong.
I have watched the interesting attitudes of those
who have assumed they had authority where
none existed, and it was really merely fallen
pride.
Preach, on another board, there was a man who
believed that simply because his anatomy
differed slightly from mine, he had some
authority and intelligence over mine. It was
really quite humorous.
attitude toward authority." I found this final
statement to be of great interest. 8o) And
believe me, this is not pointed to you, Preach,
because I am sure you recognize that you have
no authority over me.
But Ii have found it interesting, in the past, that
there are preachers and pastors who actually
believe that they have an immovable authority
over the persons in their congregations. They
use this assumed "authority" to dictate to the
individuals exactly such things as we are dis-
cussing here--telling people what they may
may not wear, where they may/may not go,
what they may/may not do, etc.
What they do not realize is that when and if they
have any authority at all, it is a gift given them by
the willing submission of a believer to a trusted
leader. When the believer loses trust in that
leader, that leader loses authority, no matter
which party is the one who is wrong.
I have watched the interesting attitudes of those
who have assumed they had authority where
none existed, and it was really merely fallen
pride.
Preach, on another board, there was a man who
believed that simply because his anatomy
differed slightly from mine, he had some
authority and intelligence over mine. It was
really quite humorous.
Daniel David
New Member
If you can be mistaken for a woman, you have long hair. Does that make sense?Originally posted by Johnv:
Please define the biblical definition of "long hair". The Beatles were accused of having long hair when they first appeared. I submit that "long" hair is relative.
First, I agree that a pastor should not try to dictate what modestly dressed people wear. Does that mean he cannot? No.Originally posted by Preach the Word:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abiyah:
If a person dresses modestly, is it the pastor's business to dictate to them what to wear? How did he get such authority?
He gets his authority because God has ordained certain people to (under)shepherd his flock.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
This is clearly speaking of biblical elders. This would obviously mean that you don't obey sin. However, if it is a "right", you need to submit.
I hope that answers your questions.</font>[/QUOTE]Here is where we certainly disagree. No One,
and I mean No One has been given any authority
by our Lord and/or by His Word to tell another
what they may or may not wear, other than to
dress modestly. To use Hebrews 13:17 as the
reason for telling another what to wear, other than
to dress modestly, is to stretch the Scripture
beyond its breaking point and to take on the
place of dictator rather than pastor.
I hope that I have misinterpretted what you wrote.
[ November 26, 2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
Daniel David
New Member
I want to quickly affirm that I do not believe in absolute authority. God does not appoint C.E.O.s or kings to rule the church. There is one Lord; that is Christ. However, he has granted some authority to lead and teach. If personal "rights" are involved, one needs to submit.Originally posted by Abiyah:
"A lot can be ... was really quite humorous.
Daniel David
New Member
Abiyah, I believe you are in error. I am not for the idea of pastors dictating what can and can't be worn to church or even in everyday activities.
However, if a person's rights are involved, the truth throughout the Scripture is submission to authority. Elders have been granted such authority on issues of "rights".
If the government says that women cannot where pants, what would you do? Would you do it anyway? Would you move to another country? Would you comply with their request?
The only time we buck authority is if it is direct opposition to the integrity of the gospel or if it is an issue of morality (if the government banned tops, women should not go topless).
However, if a person's rights are involved, the truth throughout the Scripture is submission to authority. Elders have been granted such authority on issues of "rights".
If the government says that women cannot where pants, what would you do? Would you do it anyway? Would you move to another country? Would you comply with their request?
The only time we buck authority is if it is direct opposition to the integrity of the gospel or if it is an issue of morality (if the government banned tops, women should not go topless).
Daniel David
New Member
1. If that is your conclusion of what I said, you don't read well.Originally posted by Johnv:
1. Perhaps forcing our wives to wear maid uniforms will suffice.
2. If a man says 'perform this sexual act', it is called rape. A man who subjects his wife to this kind of "authority" is no man. Slavedriver, yes. Man, no.
2. I don't remember advocating submission to sin.
Btw, the Bible does not teach mutual submission. If you want to discuss that, please start another thread.
Daniel David
New Member
Helen, I am willing to say that the issue of submission and dress are important to Christian character. If you don't like this thread, I will encourage people to stop twisting your arm to post in it. You have contributed to the now 7 pages yourself.Originally posted by Helen:
Now, about Christian character, which is far more important....
How am I in error? Where did I say that I wear
pants because it is my "right" to wear pants?
I clearly stated, again and again, that I wear
pants as a matter of modesty. My modesty
is important to me, far above some idea of
either "rights" or someone else's idea of what
modesty is in their own mind.
If my pastor's concept of modesty crosses
that of my own, I must go with what I believe
I am called to do, in order to follow my God
and not a man.
I was already excommunicated from a church
for refusing to comply with their ludicrous rule
that we married women were not to wear
wedding bands. Why did I refuse to continue to
take mine off when entering the church?
Because not wearing my wedding band indi-
cated that my husband and I were not married
but were merely living together.
For the sake of moral purity toward my world,
I refused to continue to follow their extra-
biblical idea, jeopardizing my relationships
which had spanned more than 50 years. Did I
lose friends? I certainly did--all of them.
If my government told me I could not wear
pants, I would wear them anyway. Why do you
ask?
pants because it is my "right" to wear pants?
I clearly stated, again and again, that I wear
pants as a matter of modesty. My modesty
is important to me, far above some idea of
either "rights" or someone else's idea of what
modesty is in their own mind.
If my pastor's concept of modesty crosses
that of my own, I must go with what I believe
I am called to do, in order to follow my God
and not a man.
I was already excommunicated from a church
for refusing to comply with their ludicrous rule
that we married women were not to wear
wedding bands. Why did I refuse to continue to
take mine off when entering the church?
Because not wearing my wedding band indi-
cated that my husband and I were not married
but were merely living together.
For the sake of moral purity toward my world,
I refused to continue to follow their extra-
biblical idea, jeopardizing my relationships
which had spanned more than 50 years. Did I
lose friends? I certainly did--all of them.
If my government told me I could not wear
pants, I would wear them anyway. Why do you
ask?
the Bible does not teach mutual submission. If you want to discuss that, please start another thread.
First, I disagree; and second, I'm amused in the way you bring it up in this topic, and duck and run by telling me to take it to another topic. I suggest you refrain from discussing it in this thread as well.
First, I disagree; and second, I'm amused in the way you bring it up in this topic, and duck and run by telling me to take it to another topic. I suggest you refrain from discussing it in this thread as well.
Daniel David
New Member
Johnv, I am glad you find my posts amusing. Also, I said to start a thread on MUTUAL SUBMISSION. This thread has developed into a discussion about clothes and submission to the wishes of those in authority in relation to clothes.
Daniel David
New Member
Let me say first that I agree with your refusal to take your wedding ring off. However, if I understand your situation, there were some doctrinal issues that certainly warranted your leaving of that church.Originally posted by Abiyah:
How am I in error? If my government told me I could not wear pants, I would wear them anyway. Why do you ask?
Let me offer three areas where I believe you are in error, all taken from Scripture:
1. I mentioned already the Hebrews 13:17 passage. If my interpretation is in error, please let me know what the correct interpretation of "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive..." is.
2. Peter sums up his discourse on authority and submission with "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."
Peter lived in a society that took pleasure in persecuting Christians and this is his teaching. Let that all sink in and chew on it awhile.
3. Paul says, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Paul acted like the weak to win the weak. He acted like a Jew to win the Jew. He acted like a Gentile to win the Gentile. This was all for the gospel's sake. Why do we follow God's divine order of submission? For the sake of the gospel. If the government says to never wear pants again, you would be violating clear Scripture to do it anyway. I didn't even mention Romans 13.