Are dress standards dead in a majority of churches?

[Walt]

Just because something was done a certain way in "the good old days" doesn't mean it was right.

Agreed

Remember, Paul's definition of immodesty was dressing UP and not dressing down.

I don't recall this at all.  Paul talked about the sin dressing merely to impress outwardly, not the same as "dressing up."  James talked about the sin of showing partiality based upon how someone is dressed.

Concerning the other issues, where did Jesus say that such things matter? Does leadership LOVE the people? Do the LOVE God? Do they encourage folks to LOVE one another as themselves? Everything else is just dressing (no pun intended).

At the same time, if one loves God, one wants to know if He says something about a subject and then one tries to obey Him.  So, if the Bible gives us guidelines on how to dress, should we not follow them if we love God?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hmmm very interesting reply.  I am new to internet forums.  I came here in hopes to find an answer about the condition of other IFB churches in general.  I guess to put it politely, if you were sitting as a guest in my kitchen I would never speak to you that way, even with opposing views.  And if you continued to speak to me that way, my husband would ask you to leave.  Why the brashness???  If you were to have simply asked me what it is that I believe defines a liberal church I would give you my answer.  I honestly believe that when the church incorporates so much of the world that you can no longer tell it apart from the church it is a tell tale sign that it had already gone liberal years ago.  I understand that only in a cult like church would everyone be in the same area of growth, but the absolute absence of standards is not pleasing to the Lord.  To put it bluntly there is a ditch on both sides of the road.  I think the purpose of this thread has been well served for me.  I got the answer to my question and a few were very sincere and kind to me even though they shared different view.  Thank you again.

You're being overly sensitive.

At the same time, it's really sad that you actually believe what you've written here. For the record, pants in church.... didn't start 15 years ago. My mother wore pants to a Baptist church 40 years ago. For the record, Southern Gospel music was treated the same as CCM 40 years ago. My mother song and gained great blessings from Southern Gospel music. There is NOTHING worldly about praising God. NOTHING.

You should search the heart of God. Your attitude and pain over such nonsense is entirely of your own making. It has nothing to do with the church getting worldly. John spoke those things that are of the world.... and these traits have been in church for thousands of years. Lust of the flesh. Lust of the eye and the Pride of Life. I've seen this in more churches than I care to remember. It's nothing new.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Just because something was done a certain way in "the good old days" doesn't mean it was right.

Agreed

Remember, Paul's definition of immodesty was dressing UP and not dressing down.

I don't recall this at all.  Paul talked about the sin dressing merely to impress outwardly, not the same as "dressing up."  James talked about the sin of showing partiality based upon how someone is dressed.

Concerning the other issues, where did Jesus say that such things matter? Does leadership LOVE the people? Do the LOVE God? Do they encourage folks to LOVE one another as themselves? Everything else is just dressing (no pun intended).

At the same time, if one loves God, one wants to know if He says something about a subject and then one tries to obey Him.  So, if the Bible gives us guidelines on how to dress, should we not follow them if we love God?

It's called modest apparel Walt. Modest apparel. THIS is dressing down. Not dressing up.

 

[dmedicinus]

Can I ask a question that should be obvious, is this fff for or against independant fundamental baptists? Thanks

 

[T-Bone]

Can I ask a question that should be obvious, is this fff for or against independant fundamental baptists? Thanks

Most here are for biblical truth...this place was not established as a defense for IFB..it is a place to debate and even fight over issues, without over reaching by the moderators. There are plenty of forums that have only one particular view and they kick off people who don't toe the IFB line...that's not here.

 

[JrChurch]

You can see what this place is like by the words that are expressed.  Feel free to come here and state your views, but expect some answers to be lacking grace. 

 

[dmedicinus]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

 

[Walt]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

If you use the "quote" button, it will copy what the person said that you are replying to.

For what it's worth (and I feel that I am pretty much alone here), I think that CCM is worldly and shouldn't be used in churches. Yes, some of the songs may have good words (the majority don't, in my opinion).  But I'm talking about the music and the vocal style - they come from the world and (again, in my opinion) churches that adapt CCM usually begin dropping their standards.  It seems to me that most IFB churches today are where the new evangelicals were 40-50 years ago: back then, they had the same doctrine as fundamentalists -- it was only in the matter of separation that they disagreed with the  fundamentalists.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" was their cry.  But, now, looking at the fruit of that philosophy, they have given up practically every essential for the sake of unity.  It's not my intent to start a debate on CCM; it's been done in other places; I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.

I am less certain about the dress standards; clearly, the Bible teaches modesty, and provides some guidelines for it.  But are those enough to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses?  I don't know for sure, but I'd rather err on the conservative side.

 

[Walt]

Thank you, but no thank you to the rude mocking comments, seriously grow up, I would like to talk about this like an adult.

Anyone who equates women wearing slacks with liberalism isn't discussing anything like an adult. That kind of simplistic moral equivalence is kid stuff.

And this post is just filled with grace and tolerance... good grief.  Perhaps it is what she has observed... churches that allowed women to wear slacks have become more liberal over time.  It's certainly valid observation; it may or may not be cause and effect.

 

[T-Bone]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

If you use the "quote" button, it will copy what the person said that you are replying to.

For what it's worth (and I feel that I am pretty much alone here), I think that CCM is worldly and shouldn't be used in churches. Yes, some of the songs may have good words (the majority don't, in my opinion).  But I'm talking about the music and the vocal style - they come from the world and (again, in my opinion) churches that adapt CCM usually begin dropping their standards.  It seems to me that most IFB churches today are where the new evangelicals were 40-50 years ago: back then, they had the same doctrine as fundamentalists -- it was only in the matter of separation that they disagreed with the  fundamentalists.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" was their cry.  But, now, looking at the fruit of that philosophy, they have given up practically every essential for the sake of unity.  It's not my intent to start a debate on CCM; it's been done in other places; I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.

I am less certain about the dress standards; clearly, the Bible teaches modesty, and provides some guidelines for it.  But are those enough to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses?  I don't know for sure, but I'd rather err on the conservative side.

It's well known here that I am SBC...we have a blended service in our church...which means we use both tradition and contemporary ( both very examined for content) in our worship service, as do almost all SBC churches I know...and I know a lot in 34 years of ministry.  Could you give me one biblical fundamental, just one that we have compromised on..based on our use of contemporary music.  Thanks.

 

[Walt]

Are we going to find like minded brethren anywhere???? Our we so old fashioned that we will not find a church that holds dress standards again, or if they do it is only a matter of time before they fall????

You CAN find churches that have strict dress standards.  Most of the ones that I know of like this tend to equate externals with spirituality; that is, the un-biblical idea that if a women shuns slacks, she must be spiritual (or if a man has short hair, he must be spiritual).  The man may abuse his wife and be feuding with half the church, but if he is following the church "standards", they count him spiritual.

More and more, it seems to me that wise pastors preach to what the Bible says (modesty), and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of the believers.  I was in two such churches, and they seem to turn out far more Christ-minded people that the proscriptive type of church that was very vocal about how "Christians" should look.

All of this is very subjective, you understand; I've only been in a handful of churches long enough to get some take on what they are like.

 

[Walt]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

If you use the "quote" button, it will copy what the person said that you are replying to.

For what it's worth (and I feel that I am pretty much alone here), I think that CCM is worldly and shouldn't be used in churches. Yes, some of the songs may have good words (the majority don't, in my opinion).  But I'm talking about the music and the vocal style - they come from the world and (again, in my opinion) churches that adapt CCM usually begin dropping their standards.  It seems to me that most IFB churches today are where the new evangelicals were 40-50 years ago: back then, they had the same doctrine as fundamentalists -- it was only in the matter of separation that they disagreed with the  fundamentalists.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" was their cry.  But, now, looking at the fruit of that philosophy, they have given up practically every essential for the sake of unity.  It's not my intent to start a debate on CCM; it's been done in other places; I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.

I am less certain about the dress standards; clearly, the Bible teaches modesty, and provides some guidelines for it.  But are those enough to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses?  I don't know for sure, but I'd rather err on the conservative side.

It's well known here that I am SBC...we have a blended service I our church...which means we use bot tradition and contemporary ( both very examined for content) in our worship service, as do almost all SBC churches I know...and I know a lot in 34 years of ministry.  Could you give me one biblical fundamental, just one that we have compromised on..based on our use of contemporary music.  Thanks.

I do not know your church, of course. Let's see... two areas that come to mind are (a) women preachers, and (b) inspiration of Scripture.  Used to be that SBC firmly supported the inerrant, inspiration of the Scriptures, and believed that women should not be preachers.  No longer the case, as I consider what I've heard of the convention meetings.

I'm not saying that CCM caused this; what I said was that churches that have adopted CCM have, in my opinion, let other matters slide over time.

 

[bgwilkinson]

dmedicinus welcome to fff.

My family lived on a farm in Minnesota during my early years, it was around WW2 time, I was too young to go to war but I clearly remember how things were.

In the area where we lived all of the Ladies of all ages wore floor length dresses that did not show any  part of the ladies foot, they were that long. Shoulders, arms and heads were always covered. We attended a Swedish Covenant Church that had Baptist like beliefs.

Then my parents became involved in what we would now call home missions. They traveled the country from North to South building interest of people to start churches in small towns, form Minnesota to South Texas.
I remember how my mom was amazed at the clothing the ladies wore in the larger towns we would visit.

When mom would see a lady wearing a dress that showed her ankles she would remark under her breath, "look at that hussy, make sure you stay away from girls that dress like that. Well over the years mom changed, her dresses got shorter and shorter, they never did make it up to her knees but she did show her ankles and she sure wasn't a hussy.

My point is that what is immodest in one generation is no longer considered immodest in the next.

I have heard preaching against pianos in the church house because they have them down at the saloon and they use them to play dance music for the dancing girls. Pianos were thought to be the devils music boxes.
Many of the hymns we sing in church today used worldly bar tunes. That's a study all it's own.

In the 40s the telephone was just starting to be installed in some houses, the old crank kind. Again there was preaching against telephones and all the manner of evil they may provoke.

These issues are certainly of a relative nature so it is not possible to be too dogmatic on things such as dress.

What is modest to one is immodest to another.

There are extremes, on one side we have total nudity, on the other ladies wear burkas with screens so their eyes cannot be seen. 

 

[T-Bone]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

If you use the "quote" button, it will copy what the person said that you are replying to.

For what it's worth (and I feel that I am pretty much alone here), I think that CCM is worldly and shouldn't be used in churches. Yes, some of the songs may have good words (the majority don't, in my opinion).  But I'm talking about the music and the vocal style - they come from the world and (again, in my opinion) churches that adapt CCM usually begin dropping their standards.  It seems to me that most IFB churches today are where the new evangelicals were 40-50 years ago: back then, they had the same doctrine as fundamentalists -- it was only in the matter of separation that they disagreed with the  fundamentalists.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" was their cry.  But, now, looking at the fruit of that philosophy, they have given up practically every essential for the sake of unity.  It's not my intent to start a debate on CCM; it's been done in other places; I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.

I am less certain about the dress standards; clearly, the Bible teaches modesty, and provides some guidelines for it.  But are those enough to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses?  I don't know for sure, but I'd rather err on the conservative side.

It's well known here that I am SBC...we have a blended service I our church...which means we use bot tradition and contemporary ( both very examined for content) in our worship service, as do almost all SBC churches I know...and I know a lot in 34 years of ministry.  Could you give me one biblical fundamental, just one that we have compromised on..based on our use of contemporary music.  Thanks.

I do not know your church, of course. Let's see... two areas that come to mind are (a) women preachers, and (b) inspiration of Scripture.  Used to be that SBC firmly supported the inerrant, inspiration of the Scriptures, and believed that women should not be preachers.  No longer the case, as I consider what I've heard of the convention meetings.

I'm not saying that CCM caused this; what I said was that churches that have adopted CCM have, in my opinion, let other matters slide over time.

Sorry brother you are misinformed ... I know of no SBC church that has either a woman pastor or denies the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Nor does the convention as a whole approve of women pastors, and it does promote the inerrancy of the scripture.  Not one of the five seminaries teach what you have said.  As a matter of fact the SBC has fought those fights and the group that promoted such, The Cooperative Baptist, have left.

The last statement is merely an opinion on your part, which you are free to have, but it has no basis in fact...sadly it ends up falsely labeling and besmirching brother s in Christ who have kept the faith.

 

[Ransom]

I guess to put it politely, if you were sitting as a guest in my kitchen I would never speak to you that way, even with opposing views.  And if you continued to speak to me that way, my husband would ask you to leave.

To put it somewhat less politely, I care not. I'm not in your kitchen; in effect, you're in mine.

Why the brashness???  If you were to have simply asked me what it is that I believe defines a liberal church I would give you my answer.

I have no need of your definition of liberalism. When you associated such peripheral issues as women wearing pants and CCM with the term "liberal," it was immediately understandable that you were not using that term in a fashion consistent with its actual definition, as if a woman in pants might actually have something to do with denying the inspiration of Scripture or the virgin birth.

Really, you mean nothing more by "liberal" than "moving on from traditions that I approve of, in favour of traditions that I don't."

Both the examples you have cited so far are prime examples of this. Older church music and a particular dress code don't reflect a lack of "worldliness"; they merely reflect a form of worldliness that was in vogue around 60 years ago. It's kind of like being Amish, only with less actual thought put into it.

 

[Ransom]

You can see what this place is like by the words that are expressed.

Yes, we seem to have an abundance of folks who only show up in order to tear their robes publicly.

 

[prophet]

Once again, the Bible never tells us to dress modestly.
It defines modest dress as "good works"

Context is your friend, right?
This passage has nothing to do with clothing, it is only mentioned in a metaphor:

1Ti 2:8-15
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Once again, the Bible never tells us to dress modestly.
It defines modest dress as "good works"

Context is your friend, right?
This passage has nothing to do with clothing, it is only mentioned in a metaphor:

1Ti 2:8-15
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Wow.... are you being sarcastic or are you really being serious?

The passage is certainly cultural.... metaphorical..... not so much....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Women braiding their hair leads to devil worship and sex orgies in church. Why? It is written, that's why.

 

[Walt]

Understood! Thanks.  God Bless

If you use the "quote" button, it will copy what the person said that you are replying to.

For what it's worth (and I feel that I am pretty much alone here), I think that CCM is worldly and shouldn't be used in churches. Yes, some of the songs may have good words (the majority don't, in my opinion).  But I'm talking about the music and the vocal style - they come from the world and (again, in my opinion) churches that adapt CCM usually begin dropping their standards.  It seems to me that most IFB churches today are where the new evangelicals were 40-50 years ago: back then, they had the same doctrine as fundamentalists -- it was only in the matter of separation that they disagreed with the  fundamentalists.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" was their cry.  But, now, looking at the fruit of that philosophy, they have given up practically every essential for the sake of unity.  It's not my intent to start a debate on CCM; it's been done in other places; I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone.

I am less certain about the dress standards; clearly, the Bible teaches modesty, and provides some guidelines for it.  But are those enough to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses?  I don't know for sure, but I'd rather err on the conservative side.

It's well known here that I am SBC...we have a blended service I our church...which means we use bot tradition and contemporary ( both very examined for content) in our worship service, as do almost all SBC churches I know...and I know a lot in 34 years of ministry.  Could you give me one biblical fundamental, just one that we have compromised on..based on our use of contemporary music.  Thanks.

I do not know your church, of course. Let's see... two areas that come to mind are (a) women preachers, and (b) inspiration of Scripture.  Used to be that SBC firmly supported the inerrant, inspiration of the Scriptures, and believed that women should not be preachers.  No longer the case, as I consider what I've heard of the convention meetings.

I'm not saying that CCM caused this; what I said was that churches that have adopted CCM have, in my opinion, let other matters slide over time.

Sorry brother you are misinformed ... I know of no SBC church that has either a woman pastor

In this, YOU are the one who is misinformed; according to baptist2baptist.net, there are 30 SBC churches with a woman pastor, with two of these in Texas.

I remember listening to coverage of the SBC Conventions 30 years ago where both this topic and the inerrancy of the Scriptures were topics of controversy.