Posted on 11/13/2013 5:43:01 PM PST by Faith Presses On
The Bible clearly says that women should dress modestly. Why does much of the church in America not follow what the Bible says? (And I'm a woman myself, I should add). It's not so much new believers who dress immodestly who are a concern, but women in leadership.
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
/johnny
Rejecting the cultural norms argument is not simply a reactionary statement, but a rejection of a hermeneutic used to negate what Scripture says. Male headship in 1Cor. 11 and its censure of women being uncovered is not based on culture by Creation reflecting the order in the Godhead itself. You may argue what the covering is, but that a women is to be covered transcends time and culture.
You do so without addressing issues like long hair for men, or what qualifies as “long” for men or “short” for women. So
Then you need to read what i wrote, in which i dealt with it by providing basic parameters based on sexual attraction so that you need not get into legalism. If you can't make basic judgments on what is sexually revealing based on what i wrote then you foster legalism.
Then you expose the wearing of pants by women for “agricultural reasons”. So the excuses that appeal to you are ok, but the excuses of others are not.
Then you lack the ability to reason based on basic parameters and principle .
Absolutely not. Please read carefully and logically through the oral precept given to the Corinthians, and written down in 1 Cor. 11:2-15. Applying a little common sense will show you that if the woman does not cover her hair with something down on it, then her hair ought to be cut off.
A great mistake is made in confusing the covering of verse 15 (Gk periboleiou, something thrown about on, a vesture, which the basic function of the hair is for warmth), with the covering in verse 6 (Gk. katakaluptoh, the verb function which is to cover, to veil or hide) which a bonnet or veil serves to do, symbolically. The definition of cover in verse 6 is not the same as the definition for covering in verse 15.
Bible doctrine is clearly opposite to the feminist movement's desire to cast off the subordination of women to church authority vested in the adult males. This is a spiritual fact, not a political issue.
I ask you, is it even good manners for a man to wear his Stetson in the worship service? Ought not a man remove his hat when the American Flag is paraded by him, or when he enters his home? Why? If the ordinances of 1 Cor. 11 are to be negated, let the man be covered (as do the Catholic priests and bishops wrongly) in the worship services, and let the women doff their cover to demonstrate they no longer wish to honor The God's command to them to be covered as a testimony to the angels that they also are under the authority of their Maker.
“but a rejection of a hermeneutic used to negate what Scripture says.”
You cited Paul saying that Men should not have long hair. What does that mean?
My point is anti-legalistic. Each man and woman needs to make peace with God. A church leader who attempts to impose a dress code finds himself falling into error. I have seen this happen over and over. What starts as guidelines becomes the Pharisee in the Temple thanking God that he is not like the man next to him.
That is my point. Be very very careful about assuming that what God is telling YOU is the same as what he is telling others.
You can’t address the cultural norms argument with me until you accept every jot and tiddle of Deut. I bet you can’t/won’t do that. (Don’t make me start quoting the more horrific strictures because I will).
**But we are supposed to be new creatures in Christ.**
Exactly!!
When one is truly born of the water and of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost will lead into all truth. You can look in the mirror to confirm if need be; asking yourself: “is this appropriate apparrel for ..’walking epistles, read of men’.
Go to a shopping mall, and watch the behavior of people as they observe others, particularly, males ‘checking out’ females.
When my wife was born again, it was only a few weeks, and the tight slacks/jeans were gone. I was a little disappointed, since I enjoyed seeing her lovely figure on display (though completely clothed). But, she knew how I looked at her wasn’t a factor. It was how other men looked at her; and she knew the Lord doesn’t want us to encourage others to sin (lust of the eyes).
She gained almost 50# having each of our two sons, and after 34 yrs of marriage STILL has a lovely figure! Genetics may be part of it, but she has always refused to take the ‘pill’ (we’re not RC), and has therefore dodged the side effects of that, one of which is weight gain.
Does any of this discussion lead any to Christ? Or is it a bunch of folks beating..... their chests?
/johnny
What always gets left out is that I'm a pretty wretched scum-sucking sinner that is destined for Hell.
Christ died for me, so that I don't go to Hell, if I accept Him.
That's the part that always gets left out of these discussions.
Everybody wants to be right.
/johnny
As far as what an attractive woman should wear in church, I draw upon (and paraphrase) the wisdom of the late great Lewis Grizzard:
Should the young woman in the pew in front of me be attired in a miniskirt & sleeveless top, and be so tall as unable to sit without her legs skewed sidewise, I lift my eyes heavenward and pray,
“O Lord, I give Thee hearty thanks for having vouchsafed unto me, Thy humble servant, this heavenly vision of some of those beautiful things in our Earthly nature which Thou hast made!”
;^)
You are correct. I always make a point of opposing people who want to impose their own particular brand of “one size fits all”.
I am unable to associate with groups who play these kinds of games. I run the other direction, stuffing my kids in the car in order to avoid infection.
Gothard was good for business... for psychologists with new female clients after his seminars. His teachings were so unBiblical.
I never studied that fancy talk outside of the Latin and Hebrew we got as kids.
/johnny
/johnny
The bible tells us that the man is the "image and glory of God" (1Cor. 11:7). Any covering on the man would veil God's glory in the church. In order for God's glory to be seen alone in the church, the men remain uncovered by not having long hair, and by removing any head coverings.
The women are the stewards of the coverings. There are two competing glories in the church- 1. "The woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor. 11:7). 2. And "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" (1 Cor 11:15). Because there are two symbolic glories to be covered, there are two coverings. First covering is the woman's long hair (v. 15b) to hide the glory of the man (the woman herself). The second covering is to hide her own glory - her hair.
This way God's authority is declared in the church. Symbolically, man's glory is veiled, while God's glory is seen. Men in their ministry are reminded that their glory is to be hidden. The bible tells us that even the angels are instructed by it. (1 Cor 11:10).
Ok, let me try this again...
Bill Gothard was and is a DISASTER for many families who wanted easy answers to difficult questions. People are willing to pay good american dollars for a simple set of instructions that eliminates decision making.
Baby food is hard on the digestive systems of adults.
: )
Did you memorize any scriptures about that?
/johnny
/johnny
I was not disagreeing with you, AT ALL!
Gothard was and is a disaster.
Josh Harris and his “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” has also been a disaster. Townsend and Cloud pretty much trashed him in their intro to “Boundaries in Dating”, which is excellent.
I recall several years ago when Josh Harris was being interviewed by Dobson about a newer book. Wasn’t five minutes into the interview when Dobson pretty much cut him off at the knees because Harris’ views on marital relationships were so unscriptural. Dobson did it in a nice way, but it was painfully obvious to anyone who listened to Dobson on a semi-regular basis.
I didn’t think you were sir. I was agreeing with YOU! : ) Expanding while watching a very nice Thunder Clipper game!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.