Let's talk about the word "standards"

[biscuit1953]

“as we would not wish to be mistakenly identified as members of the cult.”

What about women who wear dresses? IFB dresses only. Pentecostals dresses only. In my opinion, these are cults.

Also, who decides in your opinion, what is long hair on a man or what is short hair on a lady?

If someone is offended by people wearing thongs and pasties to church are they legalistic? Does someone need to go to church dressed like a beachcomber in order to show they have liberty in Christ? Anyone who wears a suit to church is legalistic?

 

[Bruh]

If someone is offended by people wearing thongs and pasties to church are they legalistic? Does someone need to go to church dressed like a beachcomber in order to show they have liberty in Christ? Anyone who wears a suit to church is legalistic?

“Anyone who wears a suit to church is legalistic?”

In my opinion, they would only be legalistic if they required the members to wear suits or a tie to teach Sunday school or to show up for church. including the pastor. If he were to make this a requirement to teach Sunday school or something like this.

If it’s not found in scripture, how can you require something of membership that God does not?

I wouldn’t be offended if someone were to wear a thong to church. I’d be more concerned about their well being.

 

[biscuit1953]

“Anyone who wears a suit to church is legalistic?”

In my opinion, they would only be legalistic if they required the members to wear suits or a tie to teach Sunday school or to show up for church. including the pastor. If he were to make this a requirement to teach Sunday school or something like this.

If it’s not found in scripture, how can you require something of membership that God does not?

I wouldn’t be offended if someone were to wear a thong to church. I’d be more concerned about their well being.

Have you ever heard of discretion or discernment? Is this lady legalistic?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I equate going to movies with eating meat sacrificed to devils.
But I see a deep darkness that surrounds and guides Hollywood, and actors have to embrace that darkness to project the image they play in movies. When we watch a movie, we're allowing ourselves to be guided and entertained by that darkness. This applies to anything coming from the movie industry, whether in a theater or on TV. That's just my personal conviction.

You probably need to define “Hollywood”, because there are plenty of production agencies like Pure Flix, Angel, Up Faith & Family, etc that make stuff that doesn’t fit what is probably your definition. Even more, within the art of cinema I would argue there are movies that don’t fit the narrative of “darkness” (another word that would need refining or explaining). And of course your caveat of “That's just my personal conviction” makes the point moot because “standards”, as defined in the OP, means that the “standards” isn’t personal but rather corporate and implied to be universally binding on all decent and Bible believing Christians.

 

[Bruh]

Have you ever heard of discretion or discernment? Is this lady legalistic?

Ok that’s 30 minutes. Can you give me a run down? Thanks

 

[Bruh]

I equate going to movies with eating meat sacrificed to devils.
But I see a deep darkness that surrounds and guides Hollywood, and actors have to embrace that darkness to project the image they play in movies. When we watch a movie, we're allowing ourselves to be guided and entertained by that darkness. This applies to anything coming from the movie industry, whether in a theater or on TV. That's just my personal conviction.

Do you believe every single movie as devilish?

 

[Ransom]

If someone is offended by people wearing thongs and pasties to church are they legalistic?

Are you high? Come on.

 

[biscuit1953]

Are you high? Come on.

Sometimes absurdity needs to be addressed with absurdity.

 

[Plowman]

Do you believe every single movie as devilish?

I didn't say that. Darkness--absence of light.

 

[Plowman]

You probably need to define “Hollywood”, because there are plenty of production agencies like Pure Flix, Angel, Up Faith & Family, etc that make stuff that doesn’t fit what is probably your definition. Even more, within the art of cinema I would argue there are movies that don’t fit the narrative of “darkness” (another word that would need refining or explaining). And of course your caveat of “That's just my personal conviction” makes the point moot because “standards”, as defined in the OP, means that the “standards” isn’t personal but rather corporate and implied to be universally binding on all decent and Bible believing Christians.

Most posts here are someone's personal opinion. What I mean is it isn't something I'd impose on my church.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Most posts here are someone's personal opinion. What I mean is it isn't something I'd impose on my church.

I have no issue with your general observation and personal “standard” at all. That’s just not what the opening post is about as it relates to some harder core IFBs and their expectations of members to adopt the standards that are preached from the pulpit.

 

[subllibrm]

When standards are used to measure the spiritual condition of an individual, it is legalistic.

 

[biscuit1953]

When standards are used to measure the spiritual condition of an individual, it is legalistic.

The 1960’s are sometimes referred to as the “decade of rebellion” where many young people threw off the restraints of their parents, where anarchy became prevalent all across the country on college campuses and the symbol of that rebellion was long hair on men. Many Christians opposed long hair on men at that time for the very reason they didn’t want to be associated with that movement. I grew up in that period and experienced it first hand. It is no different than the example Ransom gave about hypothetically, if a new religious cult came along in which a unique hair or beard style was worn, then it would presumably be necessary for Christians to refuse to wear that particular style, as we would not wish to be mistakenly identified as members of it. Longer hair on men is no longer such an issue but there must still be discernment not only in our dress but every aspect of our lives. Church leaders are responsible for speaking out on questionable things going on in the church because the church is where Christians meet to study the Bible and worship God. We are to go out of the church to deliver the gospel to a lost and dying world, not bring the world into the church. The apostle Paul made it clear to the Corinthians that immorality and immodesty did not belong in the church.

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[FSSL]

I have a pastor friend on my Facebook feed. EVERY SINGLE WEEK... he discusses "standards" and has to remind us he is not a legalist. He never refers to a particular so-called standard. Which indicates he is without Scriptural basis.

I never interact with him. It is just a losing proposition to discuss/debate a word never even mentioned in Scripture.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have a pastor friend on my Facebook feed. EVERY SINGLE WEEK... he discusses "standards" and has to remind us he is not a legalist. He never refers to a particular so-called standard. Which indicates he is without Scriptural basis.

I never interact with him. It is just a losing proposition to discuss/debate a word never even mentioned in Scripture.

Yeah, I know I refuse to discuss the Trinity with those heretics too.

 

[FSSL]

He's typical IFB so I'm sure the tricycle illustration of the Trinity would be used in that discussion

 

[subllibrm]

The 1960’s are sometimes referred to as the “decade of rebellion” where many young people threw off the restraints of their parents, where anarchy became prevalent all across the country on college campuses and the symbol of that rebellion was long hair on men. Many Christians opposed long hair on men at that time for the very reason they didn’t want to be associated with that movement. I grew up in that period and experienced it first hand. It is no different than the example Ransom gave about hypothetically, if a new religious cult came along in which a unique hair or beard style was worn, then it would presumably be necessary for Christians to refuse to wear that particular style, as we would not wish to be mistakenly identified as members of it. Longer hair on men is no longer such an issue but there must still be discernment not only in our dress but every aspect of our lives. Church leaders are responsible for speaking out on questionable things going on in the church because the church is where Christians meet to study the Bible and worship God. We are to go out of the church to deliver the gospel to a lost and dying world, not bring the world into the church. The apostle Paul made it clear to the Corinthians that immorality and immodesty did not belong in the church.

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Association with people with poor standards or being confused for someone with poor standards? That seems to be your argument.

FWIW the same era that you speak of was six decades ago. During that time facial hair was considered a problem. I was denied entry to a local bible school because I had a beard. In 1985. Do a quick Google image search for the great men of history. Beards were not only common but pretty much expected, inside and outside of the church. Beards became an issue when mustard gas arrived on the battlefield and face masks became a critical part of survival in warfare. Somehow that put down roots in our culture and by the 1960s was considered the proper way for a man to groom himself.

I stand by my post that you replied to. You actually strengthen my argument. Thank you.

 

[biscuit1953]

Association with people with poor standards or being confused for someone with poor standards? That seems to be your argument.

FWIW the same era that you speak of was six decades ago. During that time facial hair was considered a problem. I was denied entry to a local bible school because I had a beard. In 1985. Do a quick Google image search for the great men of history. Beards were not only common but pretty much expected, inside and outside of the church. Beards became an issue when mustard gas arrived on the battlefield and face masks became a critical part of survival in warfare. Somehow that put down roots in our culture and by the 1960s was considered the proper way for a man to groom himself.

I stand by my post that you replied to. You actually strengthen my argument. Thank you.

“Hair was a flag for someone you could see across the street and if they had long hair you knew how they thought. You knew that they were into good music you knew that they were into a reasonable life. You knew their thought processes. You knew that they probably hated the government. You knew that they probably knew where the best drugs were...anybody that had really short hair you knew what short hair meant. Strange isn't it?” David Hoffman has been documenting American history and cultural events for many years and in this interview Graham Nash clearly lays out what long hair symbolized in the 1960’s and anyone who lived during that time understands it.

 

[Ransom]

Sometimes absurdity needs to be addressed with absurdity.

We can agree you were being absurd.

 

[subllibrm]

“Hair was a flag for someone you could see across the street and if they had long hair you knew how they thought. You knew that they were into good music you knew that they were into a reasonable life. You knew their thought processes. You knew that they probably hated the government. You knew that they probably knew where the best drugs were...anybody that had really short hair you knew what short hair meant. Strange isn't it?” David Hoffman has been documenting American history and cultural events for many years and in this interview Graham Nash clearly lays out what long hair symbolized in the 1960’s and anyone who lived during that time understands it.

So guilt by association, correct?