What Is A Standard?

[prophet]

Well, I thought maybe it would be ur position at ur church, I was wrong. Thanks!

We require our female SS teachers to wear skirts/dresses while teaching but we have no requirement in that area outside of that context.

I'm a bishop (contrary to what Prophet thinks) of/at the assembly. I'm not a dictator away from the assembly.

You don't read well, if you think that calling yourself a bishop is contrary to what I've ever said.

Earnestly Contend

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Can you at least answer my question about whether your forbid your women Sunday school teachers from having braided hair, jewelry, and expensive clothes?

I won't even post follow-up questions, I promise.

 

[no value]

They are what I say they are.

Good one...better yet, a standard is anything Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap and now the current FBCH ayatollah says.

 

[rsc2a]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

 

[BALAAM]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Shucks Tom, I bet you even have gone as far as to have a regular starting time! Where is that in the Bible?  LOL!

 

[Walt]

JH personally told me (mid 80's before the fur hit the fan) that the subject of his conference preaching was always going to be 2-fold.

1. soulwinning

2. standards

Thus explaining the shallowness of so many of the disciples of JH.

 

[Walt]

Once again, this thread is abandoning the original question to debate particular standards.  We have debated frequently particular standards.  As I have already stated, we often separate over standards.  My question for you us NOT why you choose to set a standard where you do, but how do you define a standard. 

We have proven we have standards and some don't like the standards of others.  I really believe that we must define what a standard is before we can promote or attack standards. 

So......  what is a standard?

I assume that you are talking about Christian or Biblical standards (as opposed to a dictionary definition of "standard").  I think SC or someone has well-defined the generic meaning of "standard"

The "standards" that we hear about in preaching ought to be solidly based on the Scriptures.  The issue, of course, is that some Scriptures are general and don't go into great detail.  For example, it is clear that we are not to be "worldly" -- but we don't have a list given to us of what activity is worldly.  Those who are saved have the indwelling Spirit of God, and He can show us, if we ask Him, what is worldly and what is not.  But that isn't happening anymore -- we look to pastors to give us a "to don't list" of behavior, and that won't work.

I suspect that this situation came about when the competition about number of souls saved began.  I don't know if JH started it, or if it goes back even further to people like Finney.  But somehow we stopped looking for a changed life as evidence of salvation, and started counting people as saved if they said The Sinner's Prayer.  So, we rush to give them assurance, they join the church, but they have no indwelling Spirit of God... so when they want to know what's "worldly", they ask the pastor, who (in many cases) is only too glad to give them a list.

I think the same thing goes for modesty - it is about having a heart for modesty, but there is seldom a specific list about what is modest and what is not.

 

[Walt]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

Make sense

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

There may be new people reading who would be edified or educated by such a discussion, but, of course, it is your choice.

 

[Walt]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard.  You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.

 

[Walt]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Can you at least answer my question about whether your forbid your women Sunday school teachers from having braided hair, jewelry, and expensive clothes?

I won't even post follow-up questions, I promise.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that there is generally a standard for men to have short hair, but I know many women with paige-boy hair styles whose husbands are on staff, or else teach or generally lead the church.  If there is a hair-length standard for men,  I don't understand why there isn't for women.  At least most churches are consistent with dress standards -- meaning that there is one for men and women, but not about hair.

 

[rsc2a]

To briefly explain how our church approaches the application of standards in this area...

We have that standard because we do not believe women should be wearing pants. It has nothing to do with trying to represent a professional image. We apply this standard to those serving in active ministry such as nursery workers, greeters, teachers, the choir, etc. b/c we want to be consistent. It makes no sense for a church to say it is against something and allow people who are formally representing it to violate what our church says it is against. We limit our required application of this standard to the times in which people are formally representing our church because we don't believe we have authority to do otherwise. Every week we have women in our services who are wearing pants. We do not treat them a whit differently because of it. We apply this exact same approach to men with long hair as well.

In relation to defending the biblical reasons for these standards I have zero interest in doing that on this forum. I will be glad to do it with anybody personally over a cup of coffee. It's already been done on here a thousand times and rehashing it in this format is largely pointless in my view.

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard.  You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.

And the SDAs believe their views on the Sabbath are a Biblical standard. I'd say in this case they have a lot more evidence on their side than any "pants on wimmin" folks.

 

[Walt]

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard.  You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.

And the SDAs believe their views on the Sabbath are a Biblical standard. I'd say in this case they have a lot more evidence on their side than any "pants on wimmin" folks.

True... I would say of SDAs that they are mis-interpreting the Scriptures, and you are welcome to say that about Tom Brennan, but it isn't far to say that he is purposely requiring things that are not in the Bible when he is attempting to maintain a Biblical standard that he believes in.  I think he has every right to do so.  After all, there are plenty of churches that don't have that standard.  While I don't agree with the SDAs, I think that they have every right to believe and practice what they believe.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

True... I would say of SDAs that they are mis-interpreting the Scriptures, and you are welcome to say that about Tom Brennan, but it isn't far to say that he is purposely requiring things that are not in the Bible when he is attempting to maintain a Biblical standard that he believes in.  I think he has every right to do so.  After all, there are plenty of churches that don't have that standard.  While I don't agree with the SDAs, I think that they have every right to believe and practice what they believe.

Unless I missed it (I confess I didn't read every post), I don't see where the discussion was about what people have the right to do. 

If that's what we're talking about, then I agree with you.  Tom and SDAs have every right to do what they're doing.  And people have the right to say, "that's wrong" and go find some other assembly. 

For the record, I agree with the SDAs that the Sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.  I think it would be cool to follow the Sabbath as it is defined (prepare meals ahead of time, no work, etc.) but I don't do it.

 

[rsc2a]

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard.  You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.

And the SDAs believe their views on the Sabbath are a Biblical standard. I'd say in this case they have a lot more evidence on their side than any "pants on wimmin" folks.

True... I would say of SDAs that they are mis-interpreting the Scriptures, and you are welcome to say that about Tom Brennan, but it isn't far to say that he is purposely requiring things that are not in the Bible when he is attempting to maintain a Biblical standard that he believes in.  I think he has every right to do so.  After all, there are plenty of churches that don't have that standard.  While I don't agree with the SDAs, I think that they have every right to believe and practice what they believe.

Easy enough...you have no problem with someone adding requirements over and above what Jesus requires before allowing people to serve the body as they are gifted by the Spirit. You have no problem with John the Baptist not being allowed to teach because of some anachronistic understanding of "the world". You have no problem with adding burdens onto people that Jesus never intended them to bear. And you have no problem with measuring one's holiness by whether or not they are wearing jeans. (Because, deny all you want, by restricting service opportunities because of this performance measure, it is assigning a holiness value to pants.)

And it's plenty fair to say that he's requiring things that are not in the Bible since the things he is requiring is to be found no where at all in Scripture. He'd have more support for forbidding women from serving who wear jewelry, name brands, short hair, and up-dos. But I somehow doubt that these things make the list pastor requires.

Of course the language being used exhibits another HUGE problem...why is it all based on HIS opinion? Is he now the Pope? Does the fellowship not have a say in the matter? (And I mean far, far more than a "we agree" that is based on nothing more than an echoing of pastor.)

 

[RAIDER]

Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.

I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...

I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard.  You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.

And the SDAs believe their views on the Sabbath are a Biblical standard. I'd say in this case they have a lot more evidence on their side than any "pants on wimmin" folks.

True... I would say of SDAs that they are mis-interpreting the Scriptures, and you are welcome to say that about Tom Brennan, but it isn't far to say that he is purposely requiring things that are not in the Bible when he is attempting to maintain a Biblical standard that he believes in.  I think he has every right to do so.  After all, there are plenty of churches that don't have that standard.  While I don't agree with the SDAs, I think that they have every right to believe and practice what they believe.

Easy enough...you have no problem with someone adding requirements over and above what Jesus requires before allowing people to serve the body as they are gifted by the Spirit. You have no problem with John the Baptist not being allowed to teach because of some anachronistic understanding of "the world". You have no problem with adding burdens onto people that Jesus never intended them to bear. And you have no problem with measuring one's holiness by whether or not they are wearing jeans. (Because, deny all you want, by restricting service opportunities because of this performance measure, it is assigning a holiness value to pants.)

And it's plenty fair to say that he's requiring things that are not in the Bible since the things he is requiring is to be found no where at all in Scripture. He'd have more support for forbidding women from serving who wear jewelry, name brands, short hair, and up-dos. But I somehow doubt that these things make the list pastor requires.

Of course the language being used exhibits another HUGE problem...why is it all based on HIS opinion? Is he now the Pope? Does the fellowship not have a say in the matter? (And I mean far, far more than a "we agree" that is based on nothing more than an echoing of pastor.)

As usual, you are missing the point Walt is trying to make.  Tom believes the Scripture teaches that a woman should wear a modest skirt/dress.  He believes the Scripture teaches that a man should not have long hair.  This is not something he has made up in his head and now requires of his people.  He has studied the Scripture and believes this is what is taught.

It is fine if you want to disagree with his view.  You disagree with most everything anyone says anyway.  For you to act like he has come up with his own rules to add a burden to people is not accurate.  This is what he believes is taught in the Scriptures and he is trying to do right.

 

[rsc2a]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

 

[RAIDER]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

Or has he properly interpreted the Scripture and his people are obedient and blessed because of it?

 

[rsc2a]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

Or has he properly interpreted the Scripture and his people are obedient and blessed because of it?

You must have heard JH say that once...

...because the idea that women should not wear pants is nowhere in Scripture at all. It's also completely ignorant of history, based on an extremely inconsistent application, generally ignores other passages that are quite explicit in prohibitions on women's clothing, and foreign to the church until some crazy fundamentalist decided it would be a good way to stand out from "the world".

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Tom believes the Scripture teaches that a woman should wear a [modest] skirt/dress.  This is not something he has made up in his head

Actually it is.  Rather some people before Tom made it up in their heads, and Tom bought into it.  It's certainly not in the Bible anywhere.

I put [modest] in brackets because that's not the issue.  It's not like he's allowing women to wear pants as long as they're modest.

 

[RAIDER]

Tom believes the Scripture teaches that a woman should wear a [modest] skirt/dress.  This is not something he has made up in his head

Actually it is.  Rather some people before Tom made it up in their heads, and Tom bought into it.  It's certainly not in the Bible anywhere.

I put [modest] in brackets because that's not the issue.  It's not like he's allowing women to wear pants as long as they're modest.

That's because there is no such thing as modest pants on women.