Let's talk about the word "standards"

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,975
Reaction score
801
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Where do IFBs find this word/concept in Scripture?

Growing up... "standards" for hair length, going to movies were supposedly biblical.
 
Ransom said:
No, not necessarily. But the standard ("don't") supposedly is.
Click to expand...
If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
 
abcaines said:
If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Click to expand...

Yep. "Standards" aren kind of like an IFB Hadith. The kind of legalism that takes a righteous application of the law, and elevates it to the status of law itself.

Some movies are morally objectionable. Since you can't discern infallibly which ones those are, perhaps it is best to avoid the cinema entirely. In fact, you must not attend movies at all.
 
Ransom said:
Yep. "Standards" aren kind of like an IFB Hadith. The kind of legalism that takes a righteous application of the law, and elevates it to the status of law itself.

Some movies are morally objectionable. Since you can't discern infallibly which ones those are, perhaps it is best to avoid the cinema entirely. In fact, you must not attend movies at all.
Click to expand...
I don't go to movies. Mainly because I have been burned too many times. I paid money and the movie was terrible. Does this make me holy in the eyes of some?

Sitting through a movie is just not my thing. Someone asks, "Do you want to watch a movie?" I reply, "I'm not into watching movies." They get a glazed look and stammer, "Oh. Okay. Well, how about a movie, then?"
 
Today I look back and laugh at alot of things we were taught that wasn't in the Bible. Cut you hair for men, wear knee length dresses , skirts, shorts. No pants on women. No movies, don't listen to rock or country music. No tattoos. No alcohol or mixed drinks.

I have short hair, my skirts are long when I wear them. I do wear pants. I don't really go to movies to busy. I do listen to mix of music. I don't drink or smoke. No tight fittings clothes.
I read my Bible, I work alot so I watch church online. I do laugh at how strict I grew up. I would never walk on college at hac. I would love to get a tattoo on my arm of my doberman who passed away. I haven't yet
 
The constitution of Harrison Street Bible Church in Oak Park, Illinois, adopted in 1947, stated: "We believe in separation from all worldly practices and in wholehearted devotion to the cause of Christ as the only scriptural basis for a happy and useful Christian life. We realize that it is only by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit that Christians are led to see the necessity for living a separated life; therefore, we oppose indulgence in intoxicating liquors, dancing, the use of playing cards, gambling, the use of tobacco in any form, theater going, membership in secret societies and all similar practices which detract from a separated life."

The Scripture proof texts for this clause were 1 John 2:15-17, "Love not the world," etc. and Colossians 3:17, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him."

When I joined this church in 1972 (a Bob Jones church, now disbanded), I agreed to these restrictions, including the ban on "theater going" which was understood as a ban on attending Hollywood movies in movie theaters. I have not been in a movie theater since 1971. The rationale was that if an unsaved person saw me leaving a movie, I would "lose my testimony" and that a Christian's attendance at even a "good" movie would be taken by unbelievers as an endorsement of all Hollywood movies ever made. My sense of the situation is that this "standard" is not emphasized much among IFBs any more.

Psalms 101:3, "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes," is commonly cited for the ban on moviegoing. Pentecostal preacher David Wilkerson, in his 1985 book "Set the Trumpet To Thy Mouth," cited this verse as mandating a ban on ownership of televisions, which he described as "Satan's Babylonian idiot box." I don't believe Psalms 101:3 has anything to do with television or movies. Commentators generally regard this verse as an exhortation not to set our eyes on, or contemplate or consider, any wicked plan or purpose that is contrary to God's will.
 
FSSL said:
Action movies are best seen on the big screen.
Click to expand...
Remember an action movie from 2000, Behind Enemy Lines? I saw it on big screen. Having sailed on an aircraft carrier, I kept calling [balderdash] because it was so dumb and so improbable. I kinda upset the folks who were sitting in front of me with my ample commentary.
 
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.
 
abcaines said:
I don't go to movies. Mainly because I have been burned too many times. I paid money and the movie was terrible. Does this make me holy in the eyes of some?
Click to expand...

I'm sure in the eyes of some, it does, even if your aversion to movies is a matter of taste rather than principle.

We all need to set our own boundaries, and that's a good. Mine will be looser than others' in some ways, and tighter in others. Where Scripture is silent or ambiguous, we have the privilege--or duty, perhaps--to decide how to apply scriptural principles to our own situation.

When these personal principles of our own become laws for everyone else, we start to have a problem.
 
FSSL said:
As long as you don't tell me to cut the hair I have left! :)
Click to expand...
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The apostle Paul was dealing with secular customs of the time; not the biological nature or God’s nature as described in Rom 1:26. The social nature Paul was urging the Corinthian believers to adhere was for the purpose of avoiding stumbling blocks to others. Men’s hair didn’t grow long because they cut it, so it was a matter of choice not nature. The customs have changed as to what is acceptable for hair length but the principle of offending other Christians not used to such customs has not. It is believed that temple prostitutes cut or shaved their heads and a woman who did this was identifying with immoral women. There is a difference between a man wearing his hair longer than the norm as long as he isn’t trying to look like a transvestite. Paul gave a personal example of abstaining from drinking wine if it became a stumbling block to a weaker brother. “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. . Romans 14:21

Longer hair was common in the 1700’s and even Charles Wesley wore his hair much longer than what men did after World War I up to the 1970’s in America. This is where Charles Wesley drew the line. “For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him...In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statures and pictures.”

This is what Ransom posted one time and I tend to agree with him. “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 the cult.”

​
 
biscuit1953 said:
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The apostle Paul was dealing with secular customs of the time; not the biological nature or God’s nature as described in Rom 1:26. The social nature Paul was urging the Corinthian believers to adhere was for the purpose of avoiding stumbling blocks to others. Men’s hair didn’t grow long because they cut it, so it was a matter of choice not nature. The customs have changed as to what is acceptable for hair length but the principle of offending other Christians not used to such customs has not. It is believed that temple prostitutes cut or shaved their heads and a woman who did this was identifying with immoral women. There is a difference between a man wearing his hair longer than the norm as long as he isn’t trying to look like a transvestite. Paul gave a personal example of abstaining from drinking wine if it became a stumbling block to a weaker brother. “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. . Romans 14:21

Longer hair was common in the 1700’s and even Charles Wesley wore his hair much longer than what men did after World War I up to the 1970’s in America. This is where Charles Wesley drew the line. “For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him...In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statures and pictures.”

This is what Ransom posted one time and I tend to agree with him. “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 the cult.”

​
Click to expand...
“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?
 
Ok, for a serious answer.

Yes, as Ransom pointed out, when these “scruples” or standards are used in an ecclesiastical setting to bind the conscience of individuals in areas of adiaphora it becomes legalistic.

However, let’s take the example of Deuteronomy 22:5 and “pants on women”. I believe the passage does help establish a “standard”. That standard is not the modern day IFB equivalent of no pants on women. But it does present a supporting Scriptural evidence of God’s design in the creation order. If it were taught properly, then the old statement of “men should be men and women should be women” wouldn’t be as much of an ambiguity as it is in the WNBA today and Sophie Cunningham would not need to be considered a hero. Or at least we could hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top