Let's talk about the word "standards"

[biscuit1953]

So guilt by association, correct?

No. Guilt by association is someone who berates any Christian who is involved in the political process in choosing their representatives while at the same time making thread after thread on how Christians should not be involved in politics. You are one of the most political posters on this forum. I have seen men come to church trying to look like Mr. T and women with hot pants on. If a lost person comes to church like that, it is expected. However, when members of the church who claim to be Christians come to church like that in order to draw attention to themselves it is up to the leadership to address such matters. Drugs, sex and rock and roll belong to the world and should be kept out of the fellowship of believers. It has come to the point that calling anyone out for immodesty is considered legalistic.

 

[FSSL]

Scripture says to "live by the Spirit."

It does not tell us to "have standards."

The emphasis on "standards" to the exclusion of "live by the Spirit" is exactly the problem. These standards placed on believers in Bible College and bleeding into the local churches create an atmosphere of fear... exactly what Scripture warns us against. (Ro 8.14)

When is the last time a chapel speaker in Bible college/Pastor in an IFB church taught about "living by the Spirit?"

When is the last time a chapel speaker in Bible college/Pastor in an IFB church taught about "standards."

The ratio above should challenge our vocabulary, love for God and enjoyment of our progress in Sanctification.

 

[biscuit1953]

Scripture says to "live by the Spirit."

It does not tell us to "have standards."

The emphasis on "standards" to the exclusion of "live by the Spirit" is exactly the problem. These standards placed on believers in Bible College and bleeding into the local churches create an atmosphere of fear... exactly what Scripture warns us against. (Ro 8.14)

When is the last time a chapel speaker in Bible college/Pastor in an IFB church taught about "living by the Spirit?"

When is the last time a chapel speaker in Bible college/Pastor in an IFB church taught about "standards."

The ratio above should challenge our vocabulary, love for God and enjoyment of our progress in Sanctification.

1Tim 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,
1Tim 2:10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Paul’s admonishment of immodest dress to draw attention to one’s self died out in the first century? He said we are to judge those inside the church, not the lost outside of it.

1Cor 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Cor 5:13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

 

[illinoisguy]

Okay, now we are getting somewhere - a Scriptural standard for women's apparel! The wimmin-folk are not allowed to have braided hair or wear gold or pearls - does this apply to women in all places, or only when in church? They are not allowed to wear "costly array" - what is the dollar amount, the "standard" that would distinguish between attire that is costly and that which is of a permissibly modest expenditure?

Does the Greek word "kosmios," for modest, refer to the percentage of flesh that is covered by the clothing, or to the amount of money spent for it? According to Vines, "kosmios" means "Orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest."

"The apostle condemneth not these ornaments where they are suited to the quality of women, and ask not too much time to put on, and in order; but where they are too excessive with respect to the purse of those that wear them, or take up more time to be spent in putting them on than is fit to be so spent, especially on a sabbath day, or where they are put on out of pride, or to make a vain show, or are of that nature and fashion as they speak an unchaste or immodest heart, or may cause scandal to others." - Matthew Poole's commentary.

Paul's concern here may be not so much concerning the need for the ladies to cover up, but rather an exhortation to avoid needless conspicuous consumption and showing off of wealth at times of worship, in congregations that included some folks who were rich, and others who were living below the poverty line and perhaps held in slavery, who could not afford luxurious finery in their wardrobes. I welcome further discussion on the meaning of "modest" in this passage.

 

[biscuit1953]

Okay, now we are getting somewhere - a Scriptural standard for women's apparel! The wimmin-folk are not allowed to have braided hair or wear gold or pearls - does this apply to women in all places, or only when in church? They are not allowed to wear "costly array" - what is the dollar amount, the "standard" that would distinguish between attire that is costly and that which is of a permissibly modest expenditure?

Does the Greek word "kosmios," for modest, refer to the percentage of flesh that is covered by the clothing, or to the amount of money spent for it? According to Vines, "kosmios" means "Orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest."

"The apostle condemneth not these ornaments where they are suited to the quality of women, and ask not too much time to put on, and in order; but where they are too excessive with respect to the purse of those that wear them, or take up more time to be spent in putting them on than is fit to be so spent, especially on a sabbath day, or where they are put on out of pride, or to make a vain show, or are of that nature and fashion as they speak an unchaste or immodest heart, or may cause scandal to others." - Matthew Poole's commentary.

Paul's concern here may be not so much concerning the need for the ladies to cover up, but rather an exhortation to avoid needless conspicuous consumption and showing off of wealth at times of worship, in congregations that included some folks who were rich, and others who were living below the poverty line and perhaps held in slavery, who could not afford luxurious finery in their wardrobes. I welcome further discussion on the meaning of "modest" in this passage.

So Christians can discern that if a woman goes to church wearing too much jewelry she is being “immodest” but if she goes to church in hot pants or a bikini we have no idea if that is appropriate? When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described his test for obscenity he famously said this:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

I may not be able to define how short is too short but I know it when I see it and so should a discerning pastor caring for his flock.

 

[illinoisguy]

I believe that we would all agree that women should not attend church in hot pants or a bikini. I'm just not sure if that is exactly what Paul was dealing with in 1 Timothy 2 (or Peter in 1 Peter 3) or if this type of indecent apparel was a big problem in the First century churches. My only question is, maybe the Apostles were dealing with the problem of ostentatious and immodest display of riches on the part of some church members. This seems to be the problem that Paul dealt with in his comment on gluttonous observance of the Lord's Supper by wealthy church members at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. I'm just thinking out loud here, thank you for thinking along with me.

Adam Clarke sees the 1 Timothy passage as a warning against revealing dress styles that were available to women in Greek culture, as well as an exhortation to avoid unnecessary expense. Matthew Henry says, "They must be very modest in their apparel, not affecting gaudiness, gaiety, or costliness. . . Those that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes, they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called good works."

 

[AverageJoe]

I grew up in a church that was so legalistic that they wouldn't let a man who smoked teach a SS class, sing in the choir, sing a special, or even take up the offering as an usher. They browbeat my dad so much that he eventually went off the rails, decided to throw off the "standards" enforced there, and had an affair...he felt rejected by the church. He was a partner in the biggest Western Wear store in Illinois, and the church didn't see anything wrong with trying to take advantage of their association through the church for discounts, free things, etc. The church used our home several times (we owned a huge house part of that time) for the youth gatherings such as taco parties, weekend fellowships, etc. Because my father smoked, my mom suffered being ostracized by many in the church (they called her a whore because she wore slacks.. Yet, when sexual sin hit the pastors family (son in law who was a pastor in a neighboring city got arrested for soliciting a prostitute, and a daughter-in-law had an affair on her evangelist husband when he was out on crusade) the attitudes got worse. The pastor was notified several times about several people having affairs and committing statutory rape, and he told me, and several others to "Stop! You don't really know for sure that this is going on. It's probably not." He didn't show any contrition when he was proved wrong. Instead, he reported one offender, dismissed him as a teacher from the Christian school, but, still allowed the other to continue being a youth worker. It's taken MANY years for me to come to grips with all of the things that happened in that church. I'm surprised that I even want to be associcated with "religion" in any way, shape, or fashion. But, it wasn't Jesus that did those things. It was his followers and their "standards." I'm so thankful my family moved south! We learned a LOT about GRACE! We learned a LOT about letting the HOLY SPIRIT lead, no some man behind a pulpit!

 

[Ransom]

I believe that we would all agree that women should not attend church in hot pants or a bikini. I'm just not sure if that is exactly what Paul was dealing with in 1 Timothy 2 (or Peter in 1 Peter 3) or if this type of indecent apparel was a big problem in the First century churches. My only question is, maybe the Apostles were dealing with the problem of ostentatious and immodest display of riches on the part of some church members.

"Too little clothing" was a marker of social status, not indecency. Slaves routinely wore short tunics or loincloths--it was seen simply as a necessary and suitable garment for their kind of labour. Conversely, prostitutes were required to wear togas.

The basic Roman garment was a tunica--basically a long shirt that reached down to some point below the waist. It was pretty much a rectangular piece of cloth with a hole for the head, that was open at the sides and tied with a belt. Wealthy or upper-class women would also wear a palla, a shawl that also covered the head, and married women wore a stola, which was an outer sleeveless robe.

Certain clothing was also a social requirement. A male Roman citizen was required to wear a toga in public, and a female citizen wore her tunica, palla, and stola. It would have been a social disgrace for a high-status man to walk around in just his tunica, though that was appropriate for a tradesman.

I don't believe Paul was writing against wealthy people and citizens wearing expensive clothing that was appropriate for their social status. On the contrary--his teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians seems to reflect Roman values on the subject: it was shameful for a respectable woman to go in public without her palla and stola, and it was an offence to harass a high-status woman so dressed. Those garments were her dignity and her protection. It was a disgrace for her to go without them--it marked her as sexually available.

There is an immodesty of "too little," but also one of "too much." Cloth was an expensive luxury item, so how much cloth a woman could drape over her body was a sign of wealth. Clothing was a literal status symbol, and it was possible to be too showy with their garments. Women would also spend a lot of time and money on jewelry and elaborate hairstyles to complement their outfits, doing things like weaving gold filigree, pearls, and jewels into their hair. And then they came into church and sat next to lower-class and slave women who could never attain to that kind of conspicuous wealth.

So Paul would want the women of the church to dress appropriately for their social status, but not more elaborately than necessary, which was just immodesty--showing off.

 

[subllibrm]

No. Guilt by association is someone who berates any Christian who is involved in the political process in choosing their representatives while at the same time making thread after thread on how Christians should not be involved in politics. You are one of the most political posters on this forum. I have seen men come to church trying to look like Mr. T and women with hot pants on. If a lost person comes to church like that, it is expected. However, when members of the church who claim to be Christians come to church like that in order to draw attention to themselves it is up to the leadership to address such matters. Drugs, sex and rock and roll belong to the world and should be kept out of the fellowship of believers. It has come to the point that calling anyone out for immodesty is considered legalistic.

You are believing your own misreading of my position. And misquoting me. Not a problem. I'm used to it.

You did say that you were able to tell how a person thinks by how they wear their hair etc. Interesting gift you have there. I don't recall it on the list of spiritual gifts but it's probably popular at parties.

 

[biscuit1953]

I grew up in a church that was so legalistic that they wouldn't let a man who smoked teach a SS class, sing in the choir, sing a special, or even take up the offering as an usher. They browbeat my dad so much that he eventually went off the rails, decided to throw off the "standards" enforced there, and had an affair...he felt rejected by the church. He was a partner in the biggest Western Wear store in Illinois, and the church didn't see anything wrong with trying to take advantage of their association through the church for discounts, free things, etc. The church used our home several times (we owned a huge house part of that time) for the youth gatherings such as taco parties, weekend fellowships, etc. Because my father smoked, my mom suffered being ostracized by many in the church (they called her a whore because she wore slacks.. Yet, when sexual sin hit the pastors family (son in law who was a pastor in a neighboring city got arrested for soliciting a prostitute, and a daughter-in-law had an affair on her evangelist husband when he was out on crusade) the attitudes got worse. The pastor was notified several times about several people having affairs and committing statutory rape, and he told me, and several others to "Stop! You don't really know for sure that this is going on. It's probably not." He didn't show any contrition when he was proved wrong. Instead, he reported one offender, dismissed him as a teacher from the Christian school, but, still allowed the other to continue being a youth worker. It's taken MANY years for me to come to grips with all of the things that happened in that church. I'm surprised that I even want to be associcated with "religion" in any way, shape, or fashion. But, it wasn't Jesus that did those things. It was his followers and their "standards." I'm so thankful my family moved south! We learned a LOT about GRACE! We learned a LOT about letting the HOLY SPIRIT lead, no some man behind a pulpit!

One thing I appreciate about the Reformed brethren is the teaching that a church should be run by elders, not just one pastor. There is a discreet way to address things that may not be appropriate in a local congregation and any decision on how to handle it should fall on the shoulders of the elders, not just one overbearing pastor who believes he is untouchable. I certainly know what it is like to be in a church much like you describe but that doesn’t annul the responsibility to have order in the local congregation where one or a group of members are acting in ways that are questionable. If the pastor and leadership are teaching the Bible, it should be understood that some things ought not be brought into the services. If a prostitute gets saved, you don’t expect her to join the congregation and continue dressing like she is walking the streets because her desire will be to have a good testimony inside and outside the church.

I grew up in Appalachia in the 50’s and 60’s and smoking was part of the culture. My dad grew tobacco and no one thought anything about. Just as longer hair on men is much different today than it was in the 1960’s so the attitude against smoking has changed because of the association with cancer and generally not considered a good testimony by most Christians today. We never had to worry about women wearing hot pants because practically every woman wore dresses back then. Even in the public schools it was forbidden for girls to wear pants. We even had to tuck our shirts in as part of looking presentable. I would say if one visits a church that is abusive and shows no grace, run as fast as you can to somewhere else. Don’t use an abusive church to justify doing wrong because two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[FSSL]

I hosted a ski trip with multiple churches. One youth group, all the girls wore skirts over ski pants. The youth pastor wore a suit coat!!

The next week, after the trip, the youth pastor called me and said he was disappointed our "standards" were so low.

I asked him if he was a Baptist and believed in the autonomy of the local church.

 

[Ransom]

I'd have just asked him why he was so foolish as to wear a suit coat on a ski hill. Would he wear a suit coat while scuba diving? Coal mining?

 

[biscuit1953]

I hosted a ski trip with multiple churches. One youth group, all the girls wore skirts over ski pants. The youth pastor wore a suit coat!!

The next week, after the trip, the youth pastor called me and said he was disappointed our "standards" were so low.

I asked him if he was a Baptist and believed in the autonomy of the local church.

No one can argue against how ridiculous that is.

 

[Bruh]

One thing I appreciate about the Reformed brethren is the teaching that a church should be run by elders, not just one pastor. There is a discreet way to address things that may not be appropriate in a local congregation and any decision on how to handle it should fall on the shoulders of the elders, not just one overbearing pastor who believes he is untouchable. I certainly know what it is like to be in a church much like you describe but that doesn’t annul the responsibility to have order in the local congregation where one or a group of members are acting in ways that are questionable. If the pastor and leadership are teaching the Bible, it should be understood that some things ought not be brought into the services. If a prostitute gets saved, you don’t expect her to join the congregation and continue dressing like she is walking the streets because her desire will be to have a good testimony inside and outside the church.

I grew up in Appalachia in the 50’s and 60’s and smoking was part of the culture. My dad grew tobacco and no one thought anything about. Just as longer hair on men is much different today than it was in the 1960’s so the attitude against smoking has changed because of the association with cancer and generally not considered a good testimony by most Christians today. We never had to worry about women wearing hot pants because practically every woman wore dresses back then. Even in the public schools it was forbidden for girls to wear pants. We even had to tuck our shirts in as part of looking presentable. I would say if one visits a church that is abusive and shows no grace, run as fast as you can to somewhere else. Don’t use an abusive church to justify doing wrong because two wrongs don’t make a right.

We go to a church now where there is no dress standard for staff or people that teach Sunday school or anything like that.

You keep mentioning hot pants, bikinis. I have never at least up until this point, seen a woman wear anything like this.

Have you in your church needed to confront a woman wearing hot pants or a bikini?