Are all things really pure to the pure?

[Citadel of Truth]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?     

 

[RAIDER]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

The widow of Zarephath didn't wear pants. 

 

[RAIDER]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

You bring up a very interesting topic that requires some thought.  I wonder how old Elijah was at that time?

 

[RAIDER]

How about this one -

Joshua 2

1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country.

3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.

4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:

Lodging in the house of a harlot.
Rahab lying.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

I would contend though that in other areas, modesty rules have tightened, specifically in the movie rating system. Take a PG movie from the mid-80s and the language today would make the movie PG-13. Partial nudity at that time in a PG-13 movie would rate R today. Kinda ironic.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

Great illustration. I think the culture allowed for this but by the time the NT Pharisees came along, seems like the culture may have changed a bit. In the same realm, cultures change and hence, certain ideals/expectations change, both for the good and bad.

 

[Bruh]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

Good point. 

 

[Bruh]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

You bring up a very interesting topic that requires some thought.  I wonder how old Elijah was at that time?

Why would you want to know this?

 

[subllibrm]

Here is my take on all of the "standards" that the church has imposed on herself.

1. Leaders (pastors or members with significant influence) have a particular issue they struggle with. To avoid that issue they take steps to prevent falling into the snare, building fences between themselves and the temptation. The fences work (more or less) and since it was good for them they share it with others. The other folk adopt the fences also because they too want to avoid the trap (even if they aren't necessarily prone to that temptation) and not sin. The fence becomes ingrained into the way the church does things, eventually becoming the expected norm. Biblical support is an afterthought until the need for the fence is questioned.

2. On a larger scale but similar motivation. A particular "sin" is identified within a community (society) as a threat to holiness. Fences are prescribed and the activity proscribed by the church "leaders". This plays out legionary in the US with a variety of things; taboo in one place and acceptable in another. Bowling and rollerskating being a couple of examples that I am familiar with.

Where I see any of these as being a problem is that they betray a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to lead Gods' children and/or a lack of trust in God's children to follow His leading. Eventually faith and trust is transferred to the fence.

 

[subllibrm]

As I was contemplating the dress standards thread, I wondered at how our perception of modesty has changed through the years. What was considered immodest when I was a child would be be very much acceptable today. Some of what is acceptable today would have been considered x-rated when I was a boy.

With that in mind, I would like to offer another scenario for consideration and see if our perception of propriety has changed - but in the other direction.

Imagine a single evangelist who comes to a town during a financial down time in his ministry and moves in with a single lady who has a small son. He lives with her and her son for several days. Would this be considered acceptable in our society today?

Of course, you realize that I am referencing Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8-15). 

So, if it was good and proper then, what makes it wrong and improper now?   

You bring up a very interesting topic that requires some thought.  I wonder how old Elijah was at that time?

Why would you want to know this?

Everyone knows old men don't accost single mothers.  8)

 

[cpizzle]

Here is my take on all of the "standards" that the church has imposed on herself.

1. Leaders (pastors or members with significant influence) have a particular issue they struggle with. To avoid that issue they take steps to prevent falling into the snare, building fences between themselves and the temptation. The fences work (more or less) and since it was good for them they share it with others. The other folk adopt the fences also because they too want to avoid the trap (even if they aren't necessarily prone to that temptation) and not sin. The fence becomes ingrained into the way the church does things, eventually becoming the expected norm. Biblical support is an afterthought until the need for the fence is questioned.

2. On a larger scale but similar motivation. A particular "sin" is identified within a community (society) as a threat to holiness. Fences are prescribed and the activity proscribed by the church "leaders". This plays out legionary in the US with a variety of things; taboo in one place and acceptable in another. Bowling and rollerskating being a couple of examples that I am familiar with.

Where I see any of these as being a problem is that they betray a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to lead Gods' children and/or a lack of trust in God's children to follow His leading. Eventually faith and trust is transferred to the fence.

Great assessment.

We erected "fences of protection" to avoid sin.  Now, not having the fence is a sin.  For instance, we told unmarried couples to not ride alone in a car together because it could lead to sin.  Pretty soon, riding alone in a car together "became" the sin.  So now we need another fence to protect us from the fence.  Result.....strangulating legalism!

BTW...the Holy Spirit is the best protector from sin.  "Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh."  It is easier to get people to "act right" than get them to be spiritual.  Legalism is easier than spirituality.  In my opinion, "hard" preaching (though needed at times) is much easier than leading people to know the Holy Ghost.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

We erected "fences of protection" to avoid sin.  Now, not having the fence is a sin.  For instance, we told unmarried couples to not ride alone in a car together because it could lead to sin.  Pretty soon, riding alone in a car together "became" the sin.  So now we need another fence to protect us from the fence.  Result.....strangulating legalism.

Very good! Excellent thoughts.

 

[RAIDER]

We erected "fences of protection" to avoid sin.  Now, not having the fence is a sin.  For instance, we told unmarried couples to not ride alone in a car together because it could lead to sin.  Pretty soon, riding alone in a car together "became" the sin.  So now we need another fence to protect us from the fence.  Result.....strangulating legalism.

Very good! Excellent thoughts.

Many of you may remember Dr. Hyles preaching a sermon titled "Don't Get too Close to the Edge".  He basically said, "I can't find where it is a sin for a couple to hold hands.  But that hand has an arm, and that arm has a shoulder, etc.  If you don't want to go to Gary, Indiana, stay off the road that leads to Gary, Indiana".  He used this thought pattern for several different items.  While I understand what he was saying, it can also lead to doing what the Pharisees did and adding to the truth.

 

[subllibrm]

We erected "fences of protection" to avoid sin.  Now, not having the fence is a sin.  For instance, we told unmarried couples to not ride alone in a car together because it could lead to sin.  Pretty soon, riding alone in a car together "became" the sin.  So now we need another fence to protect us from the fence.  Result.....strangulating legalism.

Very good! Excellent thoughts.

Many of you may remember Dr. Hyles preaching a sermon titled "Don't Get too Close to the Edge".  He basically said, "I can't find where it is a sin for a couple to hold hands.  But that hand has an arm, and that arm has a shoulder, etc.  If you don't want to go to Gary, Indiana, stay off the road that leads to Gary, Indiana".  He used this thought pattern for several different items.  While I understand what he was saying, it can also lead to doing what the Pharisees did and adding to the truth.

The better lesson would be to honestly tell them why they should avoid Gary, Indiana. Now there is a euphemism I can embrace!  ;D

 

[RAIDER]

We erected "fences of protection" to avoid sin.  Now, not having the fence is a sin.  For instance, we told unmarried couples to not ride alone in a car together because it could lead to sin.  Pretty soon, riding alone in a car together "became" the sin.  So now we need another fence to protect us from the fence.  Result.....strangulating legalism.

Very good! Excellent thoughts.

Many of you may remember Dr. Hyles preaching a sermon titled "Don't Get too Close to the Edge".  He basically said, "I can't find where it is a sin for a couple to hold hands.  But that hand has an arm, and that arm has a shoulder, etc.  If you don't want to go to Gary, Indiana, stay off the road that leads to Gary, Indiana".  He used this thought pattern for several different items.  While I understand what he was saying, it can also lead to doing what the Pharisees did and adding to the truth.

The better lesson would be to honestly tell them why they should avoid Gary, Indiana. Now there is a euphemism I can embrace!  ;D

I think they were going to the birth place of the Jacksons.