Standards of dress

[RAIDER]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

 

[RAIDER]

Come on.  At our nation's founding ladies wore dresses.  What was the year and occasion on the first woman wearing pants in the USA?

You are ridiculous.  And having fun again!!!!

Seriously (I hate that word), tell me the answer to the question.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

Then why did God and modesty change to allow for knee-length dresses?

 

[RAIDER]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

Then why did God and modesty change to allow for knee-length dresses?

Knee length dresses are modest.  No change needed.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

Then why did God and modesty change to allow for knee-length dresses?

Knee length dresses are modest.  No change needed.

But at one time, they weren't. Why the change?

 

[RAIDER]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

Then why did God and modesty change to allow for knee-length dresses?

Knee length dresses are modest.  No change needed.

But at one time, they weren't. Why the change?

They finally realized that it is the knee and thigh showing that was immodest.

 

[Bruh]

Just curious....who decided that "knee-length" was the accepted standard for modest dresses and skirts?  There was a time that would have been scandalous.

Right, culture changes, Raider.

But God and modesty don't.

Then why did God and modesty change to allow for knee-length dresses?

Knee length dresses are modest.  No change needed.

But at one time, they weren't. Why the change?

They finally realized that it is the knee and thigh showing that was immodest.

LOL!!  Yea, and JH is the one who taught them this. DUH!! LOL!!

 

[RAIDER]

Although some have gotten upset, overall this has been a great discussion.  It seems that there have been several schools of thought:

*Our culture dictates what is proper attire for a man and woman.  As long as it is not obviously immodest, it is ok.  If the fashion designers design it for a woman, it is ok; if they design it for a man it is o.k.

*Being appropriate is what is important.  Most anything is ok as long as that is what is deemed acceptable for the given activity.

*God really isn't concerned about a difference in what the sexes wear.  Being modest means not being overboard and gaudy. 

*God does care about the sexes wearing different clothing.  Pants are for a man.  Dresses are for a woman.

*God does care about modesty when it is defined as not wearing revealing clothing.

Did I miss anything?

 

[cast.sheep]

I'm done with this subject. There is no real conversation.

I'm just gonna go home, put my jeans on, and go mow the lawn.  Hopefully the horses don't get too worked up.  And hopefully God doesn't curse me for being an abomination. 

Good day, everyone!

 

[cpizzle]

Hi There....

Looks like I am late to this but here are my 2 cents.  BTW - I am an Independent, Bible Believing Baptist Preacher and HAC graduate.

1. The Bible clearly states that there is to be a difference between men's and women's clothing.
2. The Bible does not give specifics about what is men's clothing and what is women's clothing.
3. What is considered men's and women's clothing changes over time and is different for diverse cultures.
4. There is no Biblical basis for requiring women to wear dresses....NONE!  If your whole Biblical basis is wrapped up in obscure OT verses and the Greek meaning of "apparel", then you have no business making a doctrine.  God would not "hide" a sin that he calls and "abomination".  He would make it clear and plain.
5. I don't need stringent, legalistic standards for dress spelled out for me.  We should all have the leading of the Holy Spirit and common sense to know what clothing is intended to be sexual and/or revealing.  This does not honor God.  I can't give you a set line on what is appropriate and what is not, but as they say, "I'll know it when I see it."
6. Preaching that encourages people to obey God and "honor" him with their lives is not performance based Christianity.  It is showing your love by keeping his commandments. 

My approach to dress standards comes from the Acts 15.  The legalistic Jews wanted to force Mosaic laws on Gentile converts.  They met at Jerusalem to discuss the matter.  James came up with a solution that pleased everyone.  The Jews could keep their cultural standards.  The Gentiles were free of them.  The Jews would not "force" their standards on the Gentiles.  In return, the Gentiles would "curb" their liberty in the presence of the Jews in order to not intentionally offend them.  They refrained from "things strangled" and "from blood (as an ingredient)". 

I do not tell my Church members what to wear.  I give them Biblical principals and preach that they should obey God and dress to please him.  I don't overwhelm them with extra-Biblical, legalistic standards.  In return, I ask that they do not dress in a way that intentionally offends believers with higher standards than themselves. 

In my opinion, this is the solution to most of problems with each other (racism, sexism, homosexuality...)  Don't tell me what to do or what I have to believe.  Don't force me to agree with you.  Don't tell me what jokes I can tell or require me to embrace gay marriage.  In return, I will go out of my way to never intentionally offend.  Forcing people to think like you will always lead to bitterness and rebellion.  Liberty (that does not give in to the Flesh) is the way to go!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Although some have gotten upset, overall this has been a great discussion.  It seems that there have been several schools of thought:

*Our culture dictates what is proper attire for a man and woman.  As long as it is not obviously immodest, it is ok.  If the fashion designers design it for a woman, it is ok; if they design it for a man it is o.k.

*Being appropriate is what is important.  Most anything is ok as long as that is what is deemed acceptable for the given activity.

*God really isn't concerned about a difference in what the sexes wear.  Being modest means not being overboard and gaudy. 

*God does care about the sexes wearing different clothing.  Pants are for a man.  Dresses are for a woman.

*God does care about modesty when it is defined as not wearing revealing clothing.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you missed a biggie: I clip coupons!

 

[Sherryh]

cpizzle, Thank you for your post . I don't know who you are but you have some wisdom there in your thread. It has helped this poster and I thank you!!

 

[Walt]

My SIL couldn't teach SS or sing in the choir because she wore pants. In her barn mucking stalls. Not at church mind you. At home doing chores. She asked the pastor about it and he said she should wear a skirt over top of the pants.

Apparently horses and cattle are at risk of stumbling if a brazen hussy wears pants to rake their bedding.

In my opinion, this is going too far... if a church wants to make a rule that female choir members must wears skirts or dresses, fine, but don't require it when they are away from church.  That seems to be having a standard just for the sake of standards. I know that this is a fairly common practice in the more extreme IFB churches.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

They finally realized that it is the knee and thigh showing that was immodest.

I am curious as to who the "they" are here. 

 

[RAIDER]

They finally realized that it is the knee and thigh showing that was immodest.

I am curious as to who the "they" are here.

It's a joke.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My SIL couldn't teach SS or sing in the choir because she wore pants. In her barn mucking stalls. Not at church mind you. At home doing chores. She asked the pastor about it and he said she should wear a skirt over top of the pants.

Apparently horses and cattle are at risk of stumbling if a brazen hussy wears pants to rake their bedding.

In my opinion, this is going too far... if a church wants to make a rule that female choir members must wears skirts or dresses, fine, but don't require it when they are away from church.  That seems to be having a standard just for the sake of standards. I know that this is a fairly common practice in the more extreme IFB churches.

I have seen the same issue ^^^ resulting from Christian School rules about dress.

I believe the meat of this issue is modesty and gender roles.
Both are legitimate Biblical issues, IMO.

But, I would submit that, in both cases, cultural standards do make some difference.
In earlier cultures, a lady showing her ankle in public was a 'scandal'...today, I would say that a lady wearing knee length, lose fitting shorts would not be immodest by any but uber-extreme standards.
And, fashion design and cultural norms do, in fact, play a role in what is considered male and female dress.

The problem is that Scripture does not give a specific dress code...I would say because those standards do change with cultural norms and acceptance. But, modesty and humility should always be considered when men or women decide what to wear.

In Christian circles the problem is two-fold, again, IMO.

One problem originates from Xers - people who have decided that ladies should not ever wear pants BECAUSE they believe it would be sinful/disobedient. If they believe that, it becomes difficult not to project their feelings and attitudes toward those who do not feel that way.

The other problem originates from Freebirds - people who do not feel it is sinful in any way but they, for some reason, resent the fact that others even have and practice that standard.

Some on both sides of the divide just cant keep it on their side of the divide!

Thank God I'm not like other men and women! 

 

[RAIDER]

This thread has been dominated by the pants of women issue.  Let's switch gears to an area that we have hit in a few posts, but on which most have not commented.

Let's further discuss modesty with modesty being defined : the quality of behaving and especially dressing in ways that do not attract sexual attention.  What are your thoughts?

 

[RAIDER]

I think a lady has to be especially careful.  Clothing that is too tight, see through, or revealing should be avoided.  I cannot buy into the "if it is appropriate for the activity it is ok" thought pattern.  Immodest is immodest.  Ladies, I'm sorry, but I also cannot buy into the "If I wear something tight or revealing and a guy lusts after me it is all his problem".

Thoughts and criticisms??   

 

[Bruh]

I think a lady has to be especially careful.  Clothing that is too tight, see through, or revealing should be avoided.  I cannot buy into the "if it is appropriate for the activity it is ok" thought pattern.  Immodest is immodest.  Ladies, I'm sorry, but I also cannot buy into the "If I wear something tight or revealing and a guy lusts after me it is all his problem".

Thoughts and criticisms?? 

I agree with all of this. 

 

[RAIDER]

I think a lady has to be especially careful.  Clothing that is too tight, see through, or revealing should be avoided.  I cannot buy into the "if it is appropriate for the activity it is ok" thought pattern.  Immodest is immodest.  Ladies, I'm sorry, but I also cannot buy into the "If I wear something tight or revealing and a guy lusts after me it is all his problem".

Thoughts and criticisms?? 

I agree with all of this.

I knew you and I would eventually agree on something.