Standards of dress

The Underground Church

RAIDER

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
8,241
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Probably one of the most controversial topics when it comes to HAC/FBCH/IFB is dress standards.  We all remember the "strict" dress standards at HAC.  Some continue to hold to many of these standards.  Many look back now and are critical of what was/is.  Here is the topic for discussion - We all have dress standards to some level.  Where do you feel the Bible draws the line?  Where do you and your family draw the line?
 

Boomer

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
369
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
 

bgwilkinson

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
Can you say, "Mom Jeans", the jeans that'll make even a president look like a girl.  ;D  :D

 

prophet

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.

There can be no other interpretation of this.
 

rsc2a

New member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
7,797
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Of course head covering meaning head covering is totally far fetched.
 

Fresh Air

New member
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
0
Points
0
prophet said:
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.

There can be no other interpretation of this.
This is painfully obvious, and Boomer's use of this as an illustration for his approach to modesty is problematic and sad. Not shocking in the least though. I used to feel like a fish swimming upstream on this issue. Now I feel like a minnow swimming up the Mississippi...
 

Citadel of Truth

New member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
740
Reaction score
0
Points
0
RAIDER said:
We all have dress standards to some level.  Where do you feel the Bible draws the line?  Where do you and your family draw the line?
I think we err when we assume that modesty is solely a clothing issue. Modesty is really, at it's core, an issue of the heart. Consider the following definition of modesty:

Modesty (mod'i stee), n.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Freedom from vanity, boastfulness, ostentation or showy extravagance.
[*]Regard for decency of behavior, speech, and dress.
[*]Unassuming. Unpretentious. Unobtrusive. Moderate. Simple
[/list] 
My opinion is that these are very good definitions of the word "modesty." So, modesty is much more than what one wears. A "modestly" dressed man or woman could still be very immodest in his/her speech or behavior.
 

RAIDER

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
8,241
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Tom Brennan said:
prophet said:
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.

There can be no other interpretation of this.
This is painfully obvious, and Boomer's use of this as an illustration for his approach to modesty is problematic and sad. Not shocking in the least though. I used to feel like a fish swimming upstream on this issue. Now I feel like a minnow swimming up the Mississippi...
Watch out for the Asian Carp!!  :)
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
An excellent summary.

A couple of comments on Deut 22:5... the main issue seems to be the meaning of "pertain" (that which pertaineth to a man).  If the word means "associated with", that's one thing.  If it means "belongs to" then the meaning shifts - the prohibition is against wearing something that has been worn by the opposite sex.

I find it amusing that those who use this verse to prohibit a woman wearing pants (shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man) never seem to have a problem with a woman in church wears her husband's suit coat: surely, that is a more clear-cut case of a woman wearing that which pertaineth to a man.
 

Bruh

New member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,051
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If robes were accepted in bible days as a mans garment than IMO, a womans dress is culture and at the same time to be modest and this is between her, God and her husband.

AND IMO, a preacher/pastor is wrong to get up and teach that a woman should only wear dresses. My wife is none of his business, preach on being humble or something.....
 

ExFundy

New member
Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In regards to modesty. The Bible never mentions the word modesty. The word modest appears once and unless you change the context, it simply means that women should not draw attention to themselves. Why? This is a picture of Christ and his church. The church is to focus on the head. (Which is Christ) When the church lifts up the body. It is puffed up and hurts the testimony of Christ.
 

Boomer

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
369
Reaction score
0
Points
16
prophet said:
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.

There can be no other interpretation of this.
How can that be a valid interpretation? Paul is writing this section partly to tell the ladies that they should not even pray without a veil (verse 10). Verse 15 is part of Paul's argument that women in Corinth ought to wear veils (head-coverings).

"We should follow the suggestions of Nature. If a woman has naturally long hair, which is given to her as a covering for her head, the covering of her head can be no shame to her; therefore let her wear a veil. The will ought to correspond to Nature.”
            (Ellicott)

"The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. . . . . . It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so."
            (Matthew Henry)

"For a covering - Margin, "veil." It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil."
            (Albert Barnes)

"her hair … for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel]."
            (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

"for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other:"
          (John Gill)

"In my ministry in different parts of the world, I have noticed that the basic principle of headship applies in every culture; but the means of demonstrating it differs from place to place. The important thing is the submission of the heart to the Lord and the public manifestation of obedience to God's order."
          (Warren Wiersbe - commenting on 1Cor. 11) - Full disclosure, Wiersbe saw the long hair as being instead of a veil, but he makes the
                                                                                    point that dress standards, etc. should be culturally adapted.

My whole point in bringing this up is that to demand that women never wear pants on the grounds of them being "men's clothes only" is not sound biblical application. Tee shirts were men's clothing only 100 years ago, yet none of the "no pants" crowd plants their flag on that hill. The point of Deuteronomy 22:5 is that cross-dressing is an abomination. In today's culture, a woman wearing women's pants is not cross-dressing. Nobody in our culture would look at her and say, "She's wearing a man's outfit!"


 

Sherryh

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
2,418
Reaction score
5
Points
38
I have the same standard of dress I've had all my life going to college never changed anything...
 

SwampHag

New member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I dress the same as I did at HAC except I gave up my hosiery.  :)  But I still wear skirts and dresses and what most of you call awful culottes and I'm quite happy as I am.
 

prophet

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Boomer said:
prophet said:
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.

Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).

Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.

Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.

--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
    Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
    To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.

There can be no other interpretation of this.
How can that be a valid interpretation? Paul is writing this section partly to tell the ladies that they should not even pray without a veil (verse 10). Verse 15 is part of Paul's argument that women in Corinth ought to wear veils (head-coverings).

"We should follow the suggestions of Nature. If a woman has naturally long hair, which is given to her as a covering for her head, the covering of her head can be no shame to her; therefore let her wear a veil. The will ought to correspond to Nature.”
            (Ellicott)

"The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. . . . . . It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so."
            (Matthew Henry)

"For a covering - Margin, "veil." It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil."
            (Albert Barnes)

"her hair … for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel]."
            (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

"for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other:"
          (John Gill)

"In my ministry in different parts of the world, I have noticed that the basic principle of headship applies in every culture; but the means of demonstrating it differs from place to place. The important thing is the submission of the heart to the Lord and the public manifestation of obedience to God's order."
          (Warren Wiersbe - commenting on 1Cor. 11) - Full disclosure, Wiersbe saw the long hair as being instead of a veil, but he makes the
                                                                                    point that dress standards, etc. should be culturally adapted.

My whole point in bringing this up is that to demand that women never wear pants on the grounds of them being "men's clothes only" is not sound biblical application. Tee shirts were men's clothing only 100 years ago, yet none of the "no pants" crowd plants their flag on that hill. The point of Deuteronomy 22:5 is that cross-dressing is an abomination. In today's culture, a woman wearing women's pants is not cross-dressing. Nobody in our culture would look at her and say, "She's wearing a man's outfit!"
Can a veil be shorn or shaven?

I dont care which idiots saw more than hair into this passage, it is clearly referring to hair.
 

prophet

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
4
Points
38
1Co 11:15
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:  for her hair is given her for a covering.

Her hair is her covering.

She is to wear it long, to distinguish her role from  a man's.

It is a shame to shear a woman's hair.

It's a shame for a man to wear his not shorn.

The two distinct hair styles are illustrative of the church's relationship to God.

Males are to bear His image, with shorn hair.

Women wear long hair, to show that this is not their image or role.

This whole passage is about hair representing our roles

To asign anything other than hair to this passage, is ludicrous.
 

IFB X-Files

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Boomer said:
Nobody in our culture would look at her and say, "She's wearing a man's outfit!"
I would, but I'm from a different planet.
 

RebeccasRants

New member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I dress the same way I did as I was growing up in my parents' Christian home except like Swamp Hag I no longer wear hose and also still like wearing culottes!  Hallelujah!  I joke that I gave hose up on the mission field and never looked back!

I was pretty much out of the USA for 13 years serving in Mexico.  I felt like Rip Van Winkle when we moved back due to my husband's massive heart attack, and I noticed that dress standards (and music standards) had drastically changed and nobody seemed to have noticed  or cared about that change much.  I came from a very conservative IFB church/school in TN where girls were not allowed to wear walking shorts nor gauchos--only culottes that had a pleat in them.  Not saying those things are wrong just that they used to be considered wrong.

I don't personally wear pants but do not to judge those who do.  What I cannot reconcile is Christian ladies wearing skin tight skinny jeans, leggings without something over them and low necklines.  I do not believe such clothing pleases our Lord.  It seems to me that the young people of today do not have a clear understanding of what modesty is nor why it is in any way important.  We have failed to instill any such conviction in their generation.
 

Bruh

New member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
3,051
Reaction score
0
Points
0
At this point in my life it's almost disturbing how a pastor will allow an obvious glutton woman teach Sunday School that wear dresses 100% of the time but, not allow a woman that wear pants teach Sunday School.

If a pastor believes pants on women is a sin, why is pants such a issue? and not other "obvious" "sins".  Honest question. 
 
Top