# Dress codes and Church Discipline



## Julio Martinez Jr

So I have a conundrum with this issue of church discipline. Firstly, I am a presbyterian member of a local church, so I understand the issues of church discipline. I also have a "growing pain" with people who think that they can be called a Christian and not be part of a local church. This isn't my problem, though. My problem has to do with the dress code of women in the church and how they need to conduct themselves in the church. I've been in a debate with some people who claim the name of Christ but who do not attend nor are under the discipline of the church. 
These are the loci of the debate:

Women should not be infringed based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.
Individuals with a personal problem ought not to impose upon the women in the church their personal convictions.
 OK. I'll deal with those in contrast:

The church should force a woman to change her clothes if it stumbles a significant amount of men in the church.
The women in the church should be considerate about her brothers' purity with two corollaries in mind:
That she is there to worship God in word and deed and should exhibit that worship in her dress; and
She should shop for clothes with the intention that is without bombast (=showy, flaunt or scandalous). 

Those were just the reasons or methods of going about correcting someone. Also, I wouldn't suggest that any member of the church practice the discipline. I had suggested that if there are at least three or more people with a significant problem with the same person&mdash;her dress&mdash;then the elders should be notified. At this point, the people who espouse this cavalier approach of ignoring those who have the problem suggested that we can't as a church appease everyone. I took that point at face value and said fine. Even if there is a minority of men who struggle, I would say that it is a personal problem and they should deal with it; however, if there are as much as three people, then I think there is a problem. I recognize that this issue is roughly diagnostic and hard to prescribe, especially since the elders' authority is limited to holy living, but its members still ought to obey the elders of the church (see HC 85):


> *Question 85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by christian discipline?*
> *Answer:*Thus: when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church, or to those, who are thereunto appointed by the church; and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments; whereby they are excluded from the christian church, and by God himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and his church (Heidelberg Catechism, 85).


 I believe it's the underlying attitude of certain Christians that really bothers me. It is cavalier and frankly too bombastically clothed in mutiny. If you have any suggestions and/or opinions contrary to mine, please let me know. I am open to correction.


----------



## OPC'n

Do you classify high heels as inappropriate for women to wear to church?


----------



## Edward

> based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.



Have you tried sitting on the front row? Because if the issue causing a man to stumble is women wearing high heels, it may be his problem, rather than hers.


----------



## Rich Koster

Modesty has to be taught to all and modeled by the mature. I don't endorse mini skirts or burkas. I wouldn't demand suit & tie for men or coveralls. 
As far as what style the clothes are, intent should be known. Is a person wearing some flashy outfit? Consider, before criticizing them, that these clothes may be the only change they have beside work clothes and they were donated/gifted to them.


----------



## Montanablue

I'm a little confused by the term "flashy outfit." Different people probably have very different concepts of what constitutes "flashy." Big earrings? Bright colors? Obvious makeup? Very fashionable (but not necessarily skimpy) clothing?

I'm sure that some people would consider the way I dress flashy - I favor bold patterns, geometric prints, larger jewelry etc. 

I think I would be extremely cautious about "disciplining" someone for their clothing choices. It should probably only be done if someone is wearing overtly skimpy clothing that is clearly causing people to stumble. And even then, I would have an older woman approach the person (I'm assuming its a female since people rarely criticize male attire) in a charitable manner rather than just invoking "discipline."

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 08:40:30 EST-----



Edward said:


> based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried sitting on the front row? Because if the issue causing a man to stumble is women wearing high heels, it may be his problem, rather than hers.
Click to expand...


I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble. Something short, low-cut, or tight, I see, but your shoes? Really?


----------



## raekwon

Without focusing on one odd little point of contention (the "high heels" example), I'd say that if a woman -- or a man, for that matter -- struggles consistently with modesty in dress, then that person should be approached lovingly by Christian friends about the issue. If need be, it might end up making it all the way to the church's elders talking to him or her (and maybe taking action), but the hope is that it wouldn't get to that point.

Keep in mind that immodesty in dress is broader than (but certainly includes) "showing too much skin".


----------



## Knoxienne

High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress. 

Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.


----------



## raekwon

Montanablue said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried sitting on the front row? Because if the issue causing a man to stumble is women wearing high heels, it may be his problem, rather than hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble. Something short, low-cut, or tight, I see, but your shoes? Really?
Click to expand...


I could see it, to be honest. Not necessarily the height of the heel being a factor, but there are definitely "sexy" shoes.


----------



## Scott1

Modesty is definitely a problem in our generation. There are a few places in Scripture addressed to it, particularly toward the way women dress (though the concept of modesty involves more than that).


> 1 Peter 3
> 
> 1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
> 
> 2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
> 
> 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
> 
> 4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
> 
> 5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
> 
> 6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.





> 1 Corinthians 11:15
> 
> 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.




Many may not think of it this way, but the way a woman dresses reflects something of love for neighbor. There should always be concern about causing a man to stumble, not an excessive concern, but one nonetheless. We can't biblically take the self-centered attitude that it's only about what I want to dress like because I want to because what I want is all that matters.

Nor can a woman entirely hide herself simply because the Lord made her physically beautiful.

Only a couple of thoughts:

It is appropriate, in the ordinary course of things for the elders and Sunday School teachers to teach on this.

It is especially appropriate for mature and godly women to privately admonish other women in this regard- that can be done in many ways, including modeling modesty.

If an older woman sees a young woman carelessly and provocatively dressed, she can if there is a relationship established, quietly admonish the younger lady. This is quite appropriate (and even encouraged in scripture, as per Titus 2).

This is not the focus of the church, nor of fellowship, only an incidental part of it, so don't overdo it. There are a lot of tastes and preferences involved. I would not expect a session to be unduly focused on this beyond teaching it in the ordinary course of teaching godly living and exhorting others to live that way.


----------



## HokieAirman

This guy very strongly believes that attitude is more important than dress...both men and women should carry a modest and sober attitude.

Both men and women should be considerate of others when they dress in the morning whether they wear an orange shirt with green pants or a glistening tank top.

I saw a fellow the other week walk into church with his shirt unbuttoned down the 3rd or 4th button, exposing his oiled chest. I'd say that would be an example of male immodesty. Female immodesty for me would be a diving neckline. On the other hand many are not bothered by it, and in Edwardian England, a lot more above the waist was exposed than today and it was considered normal (based on my limited exposure to BBC classics).


----------



## Montanablue

Just to clarify - I didn't mean to imply that modesty is _not_ an issue. In my own experience, I've seen ideas of "modesty" taken to extremes - girls not being allowed to wear dangly earrings, "African" type patterns with bright colors, animal prints etc - so I'm wary of people becoming over focused on female dress. I think its very easy to judge someone on dress even if you don't know their motivations. (I do this all the time) Its also important to remember that something one person might consider flashy another might consider subtle. Taste shouldn't be mistaken with morals. Again not to say that anything goes, I just think this is an area in which we should be extremely cautious.

Scott's thoughts seem very sensible and Biblical to me.


----------



## OPC'n

Hahahahaha! Sexy shoes....now that's a new one for me. I'll keep wearing my high heels. I am quite able to set up for church (we don't own our own church so we have to set it up in a community center) in my high heels and seriously I'm not sure what anyone means by wearing them. What I mean by wearing them is, "I'm taking the time to dress up and look nice for church"! Hand me some jeans, t-shirt, and sandals and I would be happy to wear them to church if I thought it was proper. I actually do wear jeans and a nice shirt at times bc I'm too lazy to get dressed up. I also wear fashionable pants (no they are not so loose that they are practically falling off me like some ppl would prefer them to be but are not skin tight either) and blouses. I wear necklaces, bracelets, and rings.....oh and the dreaded perfume too! Sometime during the summer some of my blouses are short sleeve so I show arm skin.............I know, I know I really should have the scarlet letter pinned to my shirt. I guess I get sick and tired of threads like this (not that there have been lots here but on other sites there is) bc it's always women being criticized about what she wears. Women could wear a sack and some men just would never be happy. How about we talk about what the men are wearing? That would be a nice change! How about we talk about how men should learn a little bit of self-control?


----------



## Montanablue

Sarah, I sympathize. When I was 13, I was told that my wearing jeans to our evening service was causing men to stumble. (Mind you, they weren't even tight.) It was actually a pretty scarring/traumatizing experience to think that there were guys in the church who couldn't control themselves around a pre-pubescent girl wearing pants. This kind of thing causes me to be really cautious about blaming women for men who can't control themselves. Of course, we must be charitable and do what we can to help our brothers. But they also need to take responsibility for their thoughts


----------



## calgal

Knoxienne said:


> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.



Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?


----------



## Archlute

There is a recurring problem in discussions on this subject in that the apostles did not worry about the subjective (e.g. motivations, perceptions, etc), or say that should prevent us from making judgements as has been stated by a few here. Certainly heart issues are underlying their commands, but that does not stop them from condeming dress based on objective criteria. 

Would any of you say that the apostle Peter might have been off base in his condemnation of certain forms of dress, because he would not have been able properly to have judged the motivation of the women in his congregation? (of course not, because he was inspired, right?)

Scripture cares quite a bit less about our Western subjectivism than we do, or the perceived unfairness of women being singled out in the Scriptures regarding issues such as dress, public speech, and the like where mention of restriction upon men are almost non-existent. We don't like that, because we are affected by the egalitarian nature of our culture. It causes a lot of fights in our churches, and lots of people get their toes stepped on, but until we submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word, and not to our perceptions and desires, we will continue to have these issues (as well as rallying cries for women in leadership, and other attempts to overturn apostolic teaching) in our denominations and congregations.

Scripture can be a tough pill to swallow where our autonomy is involved, and I do not say that while yet exempting myself from the difficulty.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:47:11 EST-----



calgal said:


> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?



This is the sort of redirecting statement about which I have concern. Just because people are responsible for how they react to the option of viewing pornographic materials does not mean that the existence of the p0rnography is itself any less a violation of biblical ethics. 

The reaction and the transgression are two different issues, and the former should not be used to redirect attention from the latter.


----------



## Knoxienne

I like what Hokie Airman said about men's modesty. That's definitely a good example. Another is short sleeves to church. Bill simply will not wear short sleeves to church because he thinks it's disrespectful on a man. But that's him.

True, we need to be careful to not put all the emphasis on women's modesty. However, as women we also need to be careful about judging whether or not something causes a man to stumble and complaining about how it's not our fault that men can't control themselves. We are responsible to our brothers to strengthen them in their weakness. If we want them to strengthen us in ours, we have to do the same to them.
Women are not men and we have no concept _at all _as to how they see a woman's body and what stumbles them. 

As women we are not turned on through sight and men are. We don't understand that as they do and we never will. We have to rely on our brothers to tell us and believe them and strengthen them through our godly response to them under the seventh commandment to be pure in their presence. Yes, they are responsible. However, so are we. David was guilty of adultery and murder. However, if Bathsheba had not been purposefully bathing on the rooftop for every passerby to see, it would have averted a lot of tragedy. And perhaps that sword that never left David's house never would have been an issue.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:48:58 EST-----



calgal said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?
Click to expand...


Yes. We are all each responsible. We do what's right and if others don't do what's right, at least we know we are. And that's all we can do.


----------



## calgal

Archlute said:


> There is a recurring problem in discussions on this subject in that the apostles did not worry about the subjective (e.g. motivations, perceptions, etc), or say that should prevent us from making judgements as has been stated by a few here. Certainly heart issues are underlying their commands, but that does not stop them from condeming dress based on objective criteria.
> 
> Would any of you say that the apostle Peter might have been off base in his condemnation of certain forms of dress, because he would not have been able properly to have judged the motivation of the women in his congregation? (of course not, because he was inspired, right?)
> 
> Scripture cares quite a bit less about our Western subjectivism than we do, or the perceived unfairness of women being singled out in the Scriptures regarding issues such as dress, public speech, and the like where mention of restriction upon men are almost non-existent. We don't like that, because we are affected by the egalitarian nature of our culture. It causes a lot of fights in our churches, and lots of people get their toes stepped on, but until we submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word, and not to our perceptions and desires, we will continue to have these issues (as well as rallying cries for women in leadership, and other attempts to overturn apostolic teaching) in our denominations and congregations.
> 
> Scripture can be a tough pill to swallow where our autonomy is involved, and I do not say that while yet exempting myself from the difficulty.
> 
> -----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:47:11 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the sort of redirecting statement about which I have concern. Just because people are responsible for how they react to the option of viewing pornographic materials does not mean that the existence of the p0rnography is itself any less a violation of biblical ethics.
> 
> The reaction and the transgression are two different issues, and the former should not be used to redirect attention from the latter.
Click to expand...


Adam can you show me where I implied the existence of p0rnography in that post? Why can't a Christian man have the fruit of Self Control as a virtue rather than mandate skirt length, heel length, how long the sleeves on a shirt should be in a church?


----------



## Kevin

WT...?

Are you really sugesting that if 3 or more people don't like your shoes the elders should visit you?????

let me tell you a story.

2 girls (12/13) attend a local evangelical church for the first time. They meet some of the girls & enjoy the service. They seem especially drawn to the godly young women that they have met.

They and their new friends are chatting and enjoying the evening. A "Godly" woman, a long time member walks up to them. She tells the girls that "they" are very glad to have them "visit" but "if" they come back then they should "dress for church".

Full stop.

They never return, because they do not have the "right clothes".

Shame, on any person that would send away from the living words of Christ, any person that did not meet the dress code. Shame.


----------



## OPC'n

Archlute said:


> There is a recurring problem in discussions on this subject in that the apostles did not worry about the subjective (e.g. motivations, perceptions, etc), or say that should prevent us from making judgements as has been stated by a few here. Certainly heart issues are underlying their commands, but that does not stop them from condeming dress based on objective criteria.
> 
> Would any of you say that the apostle Peter might have been off base in his condemnation of certain forms of dress, because he would not have been able properly to have judged the motivation of the women in his congregation? (of course not, because he was inspired, right?)
> 
> Scripture cares quite a bit less about our Western subjectivism than we do, or the perceived unfairness of women being singled out in the Scriptures regarding issues such as dress, public speech, and the like where mention of restriction upon men are almost non-existent. We don't like that, because we are affected by the egalitarian nature of our culture. It causes a lot of fights in our churches, and lots of people get their toes stepped on, but until we submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word, and not to our perceptions and desires, we will continue to have these issues (as well as rallying cries for women in leadership, and other attempts to overturn apostolic teaching) in our denominations and congregations.
> 
> Scripture can be a tough pill to swallow where our autonomy is involved, and I do not say that while yet exempting myself from the difficulty.
> 
> -----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:47:11 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the sort of redirecting statement about which I have concern. Just because people are responsible for how they react to the option of viewing pornographic materials does not mean that the existence of the p0rnography is itself any less a violation of biblical ethics.
> 
> The reaction and the transgression are two different issues, and the former should not be used to redirect attention from the latter.
Click to expand...


Scripture probably doesn't single men out bc it most likely wasn't a problem back then as it is now. No, the men in my church do not suffer from dressing immodestly but there are churches whose men do. So just bc Scripture doesn't single men out and speak to their immodesty doesn't mean that we shouldn't point it out. Also, in Galatians it speaks to everyone that all of us should have self-control. That would include men exercising some self-control over their own thoughts. I agree that women should not wear sexually explicit attire but some men go way overboard on what women can and cannot wear all bc they cannot or do not have any self-control.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Knoxienne said:


> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.



It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself. 

But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.

Romans 14

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
 
I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.


----------



## OPC'n

Megan Mozart said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself.
> 
> But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.
> 
> Romans 14
> 
> As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
> 
> *I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.*
Click to expand...


Hahaha! High five, sista! That's the main reason I wear high heels! Some of my pants are too long without my high heels!


----------



## Knoxienne

Megan Mozart said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself.
> 
> But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.
> 
> Romans 14
> 
> As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.
Click to expand...


Romans 14 has nothing to do with wearing or doing things because they please us, or in your case, high heels making you taller. What can you do for OTHERS in them? Romans 14 has to do with looking out for the interests of others, not your own, which was exactly my point.


----------



## Montanablue

> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.



I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm tall. And I like being taller.

Edit: I should clarify that this is tongue in cheek. (Although I definitely understand/agree with Megan and Sarah's point about needing heels to make surer your trousers fit properly).


----------



## OPC'n

Knoxienne said:


> Megan Mozart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself.
> 
> But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.
> 
> Romans 14
> 
> As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 14 has nothing to do with wearing or doing things because they please us, or in your case, high heels making you taller. What can you do for OTHERS in them? Romans 14 has to do with looking out for the interests of others, not your own, which was exactly my point.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with you on this one, Toni. What this Scripture is saying is that if God has not made a law against something then another person shouldn't pass judgment on the one who is doing that very thing. I agree that there is other Scripture which tells us not to do things that make our brothers and sisters to stumble. However, there are some brothers and sisters who are so legalistic that anything you do would make them stumble and really they need to take a good hard look at God's commandments instead of making up their own.


----------



## Montanablue

> Romans 14 has nothing to do with wearing or doing things because they please us, or in your case, high heels making you taller. What can you do for OTHERS in them? Romans 14 has to do with looking out for the interests of others, not your own, which was exactly my point



Toni, do you think that Romans 14 forbids us from pleasing ourselves or taking joy in our dress? It seems like this might be a matter of liberty (within reason, as I've stated).

Edit: I just wanted to say that I reread the post and Megan's reply, and I think I understand your meaning now.


----------



## MW

calgal said:


> Why can't a Christian man have the fruit of Self Control as a virtue rather than mandate skirt length, heel length, how long the sleeves on a shirt should be in a church?



Do only Christians attend church?

I was quite taken by the thought that men and women should dress in such a way as facilitates their service to Christ within His body. Service and not fashion should be the ultimate criterion of dress sense. At the same time, surely we should be open to the possibility, and even desirability, that unbelieving men and women will attend church services, and we should dress to serve them as equally as the body of Christ. What impression will the unbeliever receive from what he sees amongst those who are attending church services? If this is important to a Christian woman she will not presume on the ability of the men present in the congregation to exercise sexual temperance.


----------



## lynnie

Last summer, on one particularly hot and humid Sunday morning, I remember that there were eight (in a church with maybe 100 people) women with one or two inches of cleavage showing. I remember seeing the first one, then the next, then the next, and then my scientific analytical mind took over and I started counting just out of curiosity. It does not surprise me with the young things who all dress that way anymore, but some of these were 40, 50 or 60.

We had a few this summer that left me staggered. I gotta be careful what I say as this is a public board but one was a leaders wife and her sundress had three inches at least of cleavage hanging out. I was aghast inside and polite outside. We had a few others I won't go into but high heels is nothing.

Let me add that I don't think I am prudish. I wear shorts and tank tops in the summer and normal bathing suits ( one piece) at the beach. I'm not walking around in a long dress all day. But I do think the upper anatomy is meant only for the eyes of a husband. Cleavage should be covered, and not by something that looks like it was spray painted on.

I also think women know exactly what they are doing. Maybe not a 13 year old, but grownups do. There is no doubt in my mind that on some level they are aware of what is motivating them. 

I wondered many times if I should say something but always got the sense that the dress is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You wonder why they need male attention so bad; as I recall most of them are married to real nice guys. I think it is lack of intimacy with God ultimately - no man can fill the inner void. 

I have to admit that if I walked around like that my husband might not rebuke me, although he'd be honest if I asked him straight out. But he'd probably prefer to avoid conflict over the subject. I suspect a lot of nice guys would rather not say anything and avoid conflict. Is it really up to elders to set the women straight, or is it up to them to maybe ask the husbands to say something to the wife who has it all hanging out? Don't the husbands even care, that guys are going to look at his wife and start thinking something that isn't exactly the latest doctrinal debate?

I was at a church once years ago with about 450 people and one week during the short "free time" before the sermon ( read a scripture, pray, give a "testimony") a woman who worked with teens walked up to the mike and told the women that it was entirely inappropriate to have your cleavage hanging out, it was immodest and sinful. She laid it out graphically for at least 2-3 minutes. She was so earnest and it came out so holy that it was beautiful, not condemning or self righteous. Perhaps this is a subject where older women need to teach the younger, not the elders. I don't know.

Its getting worse every year, that's for sure.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a Christian man have the fruit of Self Control as a virtue rather than mandate skirt length, heel length, how long the sleeves on a shirt should be in a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do only Christians attend church?
> 
> I was quite taken by the thought that men and women should dress in such a way as facilitates their service to Christ within His body. Service and not fashion should be the ultimate criterion of dress sense. At the same time, surely we should be open to the possibility, and even desirability, that unbelieving men and women will attend church services, and we should dress to serve them as equally as the body of Christ. What impression will the unbeliever receive from what he sees amongst those who are attending church? If this is important to a Christian woman she will not presume on the ability of the men present in the congregation to exercise sexual temperance.
Click to expand...


I think when you compare how we women dress for church and how unsaved women dress they would be sufficiently impressed. I really don't think us wearing high heels and jewelry is going to leave them with the impression that we are dressing inappropriately.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Knoxienne said:


> Megan Mozart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself.
> 
> But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.
> 
> Romans 14
> 
> As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 14 has nothing to do with wearing or doing things because they please us, or in your case, high heels making you taller. What can you do for OTHERS in them? Romans 14 has to do with looking out for the interests of others, not your own, which was exactly my point.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the first part of Romans 14 that I quoted is talking about judgments, which then leads to the verse 15 onwards are talking about the interests of others, not your own, which you mentioned. I am willing to be proved wrong on this.

I will try to more adequately explain myself. It's good to consider the reasons why one does things. If one finds out that their motivation for wearing a sleeveless top is to make other men think she is attractive, then she is sinning. However, just because that motivation is true for one person does not making it true for another. When she says that, therefore, because she has discovered it is a sin for herself to wear sleeveless shirts, then she assumes it is a sin for all other when to wear sleeveless shirts. I think this is the judgment the beginning of Romans 14 is talking about (I am not saying or implying you have done this. You did admit that it is not necessarily wrong to wear high heels to church). Either way, even if Romans 14 is not the right passage I think that this type of judging is not right. It's legalism. 

This is simply the perspective I have to offer.  I don't know enough to say anything about what the elders should/shouldn't do.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I think when you compare how we women dress for church and how unsaved women dress they would be sufficiently impressed. I really don't think us wearing high heels and jewelry is going to leave them with the impression that we are dressing inappropriately.



This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.


----------



## Knoxienne

lynnie said:


> Last summer, on one particularly hot and humid Sunday morning, I remember that there were eight (in a church with maybe 100 people) women with one or two inches of cleavage showing. I remember seeing the first one, then the next, then the next, and then my scientific analytical mind took over and I started counting just out of curiosity. It does not surprise me with the young things who all dress that way anymore, but some of these were 40, 50 or 60.
> 
> We had a few this summer that left me staggered. I gotta be careful what I say as this is a public board but one was a leaders wife and her sundress had three inches at least of cleavage hanging out. I was aghast inside and polite outside. We had a few others I won't go into but high heels is nothing.
> 
> Let me add that I don't think I am prudish. I wear shorts and tank tops in the summer and normal bathing suits ( one piece) at the beach. I'm not walking around in a long dress all day. But I do think the upper anatomy is meant only for the eyes of a husband. Cleavage should be covered, and not by something that looks like it was spray painted on.
> 
> I also think women know exactly what they are doing. Maybe not a 13 year old, but grownups do. There is no doubt in my mind that on some level they are aware of what is motivating them.
> 
> I wondered many times if I should say something but always got the sense that the dress is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You wonder why they need male attention so bad; as I recall most of them are married to real nice guys. I think it is lack of intimacy with God ultimately - no man can fill the inner void.
> 
> I have to admit that if I walked around like that my husband might not rebuke me, although he'd be honest if I asked him straight out. But he'd probably prefer to avoid conflict over the subject. I suspect a lot of nice guys would rather not say anything and avoid conflict. Is it really up to elders to set the women straight, or is it up to them to maybe ask the husbands to say something to the wife who has it all hanging out? Don't the husbands even care, that guys are going to look at his wife and start thinking something that isn't exactly the latest doctrinal debate?
> 
> I was at a church once years ago with about 450 people and one week during the short "free time" before the sermon ( read a scripture, pray, give a "testimony") a woman who worked with teens walked up to the mike and told the women in that it was entirely inappropriate to have your cleavage hanging out, it was immodest and sinful. She laid it out graphically for at least 2-3 minutes. She was so earnest and it came out so holy that it was beautiful, not condemning or self righteous. Perhaps this is a subject where older women need to teach the younger, not the elders. I don't know.
> 
> Its getting worse every year, that's for sure.



Amen. I know of one pastor who approached a young girl and told her she was dressed too immodestly and please don't return next week to church like that. He was very nice about it. He didn't tell her she was a gutter slut and was going to hell. Of course it would have been better had a woman admonished her, but it was what it was. And that congregation ran that pastor out of the church for encouraging that girl to obey the seventh commandment. That's absolutely wicked.


----------



## matt01

jmartinez83 said:


> Women should not be infringed based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.



This is where you lost me.


----------



## Montanablue

> Amen. I know of one pastor who approached a young girl and told her she was dressed too immodestly and please don't return next week to church like that. He was very nice about it. He didn't tell her she was a gutter slut and was going to hell. Of course it would have been better had a woman admonished her, but it was what it was. And that congregation ran that pastor out of the church for encouraging that girl to obey the seventh commandment. That's absolutely wicked.



Not to get off topic, but for his own protection, he should have at least had a woman present when he did this. I'm sure this wasn't his intent at all, but approaching a young girl to talk about the modestly of her clothing this could be interpreted as sexual harassment. Pastors and elders must be so careful in situations like this - especially if they are approaching a young girl as opposed to an older woman.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think when you compare how we women dress for church and how unsaved women dress they would be sufficiently impressed. I really don't think us wearing high heels and jewelry is going to leave them with the impression that we are dressing inappropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.
Click to expand...


Really, I would be quite content to wear a burka so that I wouldn't have to get dressed up or do my hair or make-up for church. However, I'm thinking that would draw too much attention..........seriously!!!! High heels and jewelry is a problem?? I use to be this legalistic until I realized that it wasn't a sin and that I should actually identify my sins and work on those instead of making up laws that I could live up to on my own. This is even worse than other threads I've been apart of in the past. Well, almost....I did have to defend my wearing of pants on another site. I am glad my pastor and others in my church are not this legalistic.....at least most of the time I'm glad as there are some days when I'm really lazy and don't feel like dressing up....then hand me the burka!


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> Amen. I know of one pastor who approached a young girl and told her she was dressed too immodestly and please don't return next week to church like that. He was very nice about it. He didn't tell her she was a gutter slut and was going to hell. Of course it would have been better had a woman admonished her, but it was what it was. And that congregation ran that pastor out of the church for encouraging that girl to obey the seventh commandment. That's absolutely wicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but for his own protection, he should have at least had a woman present when he did this. I'm sure this wasn't his intent at all, but approaching a young girl to talk about the modestly of her clothing this could be interpreted as sexual harassment. Pastors and elders must be so careful in situations like this - especially if they are approaching a young girl as opposed to an older woman.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. It was definitely not handled correctly.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I use to be this legalistic until I realized that it wasn't a sin and that I should actually identify my sins and work on those instead of making up laws that I could live up to on my own.



That is good, and hopefully that will serve as a reminder that we should not be legalistic over this.

Just to clarify for the sake of the subject of this thread, church disciple does not pertain to sins per se, but to scandals, which may or may not include sins. In Acts 15 the elders of the church came to a decision which also seemed good to the Holy Ghost that certain things should be omitted even though they were not sinful in themselves.

I suppose this is why the idea of dress reflecting servanthood appeals to me. It avoids legalism and at the same time takes seriously the demand to deal charitably with all men.


----------



## lynnie

sarah...I read an article by two female missionaries in a muslim nation. They said that in the marketplace men pinch and grope and touch worse than anything you'd ever see in the west. The muslims are crazed with lust and they don't even know what's under that burka, if it is a pretty girl or an 80 year old withered woman. They grab anyway. Disgusting, but the point is, women have to work on clothes and men have to work on lust. You can cover it all up and some guys will still have trouble.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Wow. I am really impressed by the amount of attention I galvanized here. Quick clarification, though. It seems that people are taking my example at face value, so let me clear the air. I do not think that all high heels are wrong or immodest. Like I said in the first post, this area is difficult to diagnose. By allowing you guys to respond--women especially since the post is very much concerned with the decorum of women in the church--I think that there is a lot that needs to be revisited. By all intents and purposes, I think that we can all agree that there is a problem in the church and that it is in desperate need of attention. Can we all agree? Second, What I propose is something similar to what raekwon suggests:


> I'd say that if a woman -- or a man, for that matter -- struggles consistently with modesty in dress, then that person should be approached lovingly by Christian friends about the issue.


The method is just as important as the manner which the woman's dress (=decorum). I don't think that every instance of "immodesty" is similar in all cases; and I believe this is the reason why this is difficult to diagnose. Ultimately, I think that if there's an overwhelming problem, then I definitely think that the elders should be apprised of the situation. I will post more responses as I will read all your entries.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:09:30 EST-----



sans nom said:


> jmartinez83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women should not be infringed based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you lost me.
Click to expand...


OK. It could possibly be due to my rhetorical style. Let me see if I can clarify this point for you. In my debate with those who hold what I call a "cavalier" approach, I set forth their argument in the first two headings or subheads. A rough paraphrase would run like this: No one, even elders, should have the right to tell its member how to dress or correct their dress. If someone has an issue with a sister in the church, it is a personal sin and should be treated (=medical verb or a practical form of "treatment," e.g., I have a headache, therefore you should take an aspirin) personally. I granted that point only to a certain degree; and I even mentioned that there is a disparity in diagnosing this problem. It isn't easy; it is a hard issue as there are different definitions of "modesty." Hope that helps.


----------



## nicnap

Montanablue said:


> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.



If a heel broke, she'd do more than stumble, she would go straight to the ground with an injured ankle. Sorry, couldn't resist.  






Okay, back to the serious discussion.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Montanablue said:


> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.



Some of the high heels I've seen I can't understand how women can walk in them, and I'd think they would be much more prone to stumbling (and the same can be said for platform shoes). 

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:14:53 EST-----



nicnap said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a heel broke, she'd do more than stumble, she go straight to the ground with an injured ankle. Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, back to the serious discussion.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't see you caught the same funny I did!


----------



## Montanablue

Brian Withnell said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the high heels I've seen I can't understand how women can walk in them, and I'd think they would be much more prone to stumbling (and the same can be said for platform shoes).
> 
> -----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:14:53 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a heel broke, she'd do more than stumble, she go straight to the ground with an injured ankle. Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, back to the serious discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't see you caught the same funny I did!
Click to expand...


 I kind of asked for this with my phrasing... I'm surprised it took so long for someone to catch it!


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Montanablue said:


> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm tall. And I like being taller.
> 
> Edit: I should clarify that this is tongue in cheek. (Although I definitely understand/agree with Megan and Sarah's point about needing heels to make surer your trousers fit properly).
Click to expand...


Again, I would recommend that you read my latest responses. I never said that wearing high-heels is bad. I do, however, object to the cavalier attitude that some sisters take in their manner of dress. I happen to like girls in high-heels. I think it exemplifies femininity. But there are those other heels that portray a very sumptuous repertoire in physical appearance. And that is the problem that I am raising. There is nothing inherently evil about wearing them. However, I think that women should be mindful as my subheads A-B under number two in my original post suggests.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:24:59 EST-----



OPC'n said:


> Do you classify high heels as inappropriate for women to wear to church?



No. I don't think it is inappropriate. You should read the latest response. I think it answers that question in detail.


----------



## Montanablue

Julio, I think I did misunderstand your post. You seemed to be criticizing women who wore heels. I'm glad to see that's not the case.

I think the issue goes far beyond certain garments or accessories and into attitudes. As to cavalier attitudes, as I said, my comment about liking to wear high heels because I am tall was made in jest. (Although I do wear heels - I view them as a more formal type of footwear and flats as less formal and a little less feminine - but that's another discussion for another time)

I'm certainly not suggesting that women be cavalier (IN fact, I don't think anyone is suggesting that). On the other hand, we cannot make women responsible for every man that may stumble.


----------



## Brian Withnell

*Objective criteria?*

The funny aside, I'd have to say that there isn't much in the way of objective criteria for saying what is or what is not modest. If you think of tribal women in places that are hot nearly all the time, it would be normal for them to go around topless and it would not be considered "sexy". If a woman here did the same, they would likely be arrested.

What I'm getting at is cultural norm. If wearing a loincloth is the cultural norm, then it would not be considered immodest. If wearing a burka was a cultural norm, then having ankles uncovered would be considered immodest. The reaction of men to what is different is more to do with what is common verses what is commanded.

Clothing: you must wear some.

The only reason I have for saying this is that after the fall (if we were innocent, we would not need clothing) all of mankind is aware of our nakedness, and it was God that provided clothing (more than fig leaves) for Adam and Eve. We are not told what is modest or not in scripture, and therefore I would tend to think it is heart attitude (and cultural norms) that control.

I would not want my wife or daughters to show up in church in thong bikinis, but I would not want them to feel like they had to wear a burka either.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Scott1 said:


> Modesty is definitely a problem in our generation. There are a few places in Scripture addressed to it, particularly toward the way women dress (though the concept of modesty involves more than that).
> 
> Many may not think of it this way, but the way a woman dresses reflects something of love for neighbor. There should always be concern about causing a man to stumble, not an excessive concern, but one nonetheless. We can't biblically take the self-centered attitude that it's only about what I want to dress like because I want to because what I want is all that matters.
> 
> Nor can a woman entirely hide herself simply because the Lord made her physically beautiful.
> 
> Only a couple of thoughts:
> 
> It is appropriate, in the ordinary course of things for the elders and Sunday School teachers to teach on this.
> 
> It is especially appropriate for mature and godly women to privately admonish other women in this regard- that can be done in many ways, including modeling modesty.
> 
> If an older woman sees a young woman carelessly and provocatively dressed, she can if there is a relationship established, quietly admonish the younger lady. This is quite appropriate (and even encouraged in scripture, as per Titus 2).
> 
> This is not the focus of the church, nor of fellowship, only an incidental part of it, so don't overdo it. There are a lot of tastes and preferences involved. I would not expect a session to be unduly focused on this beyond teaching it in the ordinary course of teaching godly living and exhorting others to live that way.



I can see where your logic is going. So would you suggest that the women in the church should have some kind of sponsored study by the church on being a godly woman and perhaps a future godly wife? I would like that to happen. I do think, though, that generally, the elders should admonish the church in proper church order. It doesn't mean that they should draw up a codex in what women are to wear. I think that breaches so many ethical boundaries. I would, at that point, just refer people to their creeds. One example was posted in the original post (HC 85). But at the same time, a local body will ultimately have to govern itself and follow the Scriptures as best as they could. This is where good sound judgment of the pastorate and the session should be noted and practiced.


----------



## Houchens

I would have to say that we should "ALL" search our motivation for how we dress, whether in worship, or in the work place, or even to the market. God has called us as "Christians" to a higher standard than that of the world. However, I am not saying we should become legalistic, or extreme about it. 
I do think we should be intentional about how we present ourselves to the world, but more importantly before God. 
I may look at things somewhat different than others, both here and abroad, but I think about my appearance before the Lord even outside of Church. Again, I am not saying one should have to dress in a feed sack(women), or in coveralls(men), but to consider the intention of our heart.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Montanablue said:


> Julio, I think I did misunderstand your post. You seemed to be criticizing women who wore heels. I'm glad to see that's not the case.
> 
> I think the issue goes far beyond certain garments or accessories and into attitudes. As to cavalier attitudes, as I said, my comment about liking to wear high heels because I am tall was made in jest. (Although I do wear heels - I view them as a more formal type of footwear and flats as less formal and a little less feminine - but that's another discussion for another time)
> 
> I'm certainly not suggesting that women be cavalier (IN fact, I don't think anyone is suggesting that). On the other hand, we cannot make women responsible for every man that may stumble.


I respect your candor. See, this is exactly what I was aiming for. There are some people, however, that would elicit a very cavalier approach. For instance, the argument would run like this: It is his personal problem, therefore I don't need to appease everyone. There are so many logical inconsistencies in this statement that I don't think I really need to analyze it, do I? What I responded to her (I will leave her unnamed) was this: if there is a significant number of men in the church who stumble at her sight--be that whatever her intentions are in her dress--I think at that point there is a problem. I used a narrative to illustrate that point. I said that if you are walking down the street and you smelled smoke (maybe they saw smoke) and they heard sirens, then there is a fair assumption via the use of induction, that there is a fire. The fact that there are more than three (any number above the norm really) people who struggle in a given church is clearly an instance of trouble. All I am saying is that there is a problem and perhaps someone needs to mention it. I would first suggest that a mature sister in the church should talk to the offending (I'm using that term loosely) sister, lest the pastors be apprised and deal with it individually. I don't think it needs to come to that. After all, unity in the church is a primary concern, is it not?


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.



I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.


----------



## Archlute

Brian Withnell said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.
Click to expand...


Brian,

I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation. 

The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.
> 
> The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.



Well noted, Adam.

Cultural standards should be framed according to the precept to honour father and mother. Those in positions of responsibility set the standards. Sadly we are about to face a third generation which abdicates parental responsibility, which means the cultural standards can only slip further.


----------



## kevin.carroll

calgal said:


> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?



Of course! But the Bible does specifically speak to the issue of female modesty in dress, likely because of the weaknesses of men. Our society has become increasingly sexualized and I am sometimes apalled at what Christian women will wear and how equally clueless they are as to its effect on men.

As an aside, no one seems to have commented on the fact that the brother who began this thread is clearly from a different culture. Modesty is to some extent driven by culture, which may have something to do with why he mentioned shoes.

Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Archlute said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.
> 
> The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.
Click to expand...


Okay, so were in scripture are the objective moral standards of dress? I cannot find them.

God's word is our only infallible standard of faith and life (and more, cf WCF chapter 1) and so we should find within its pages those things which are explicitly expressed or through good and necessary conclusion can be deduced. Length of dress (or even a dress as opposed to pants), height of heels, and many other things we do not find.

What we do find is a command to be modest. We find commands to self-control. We find commands to love one another. I may be mistaken, but I don't know as there is a command to women to cover their breasts (though I'm not advocating for topless woman!) If it can be concluded by necessary deduction from scripture, then I'm willing to hear the syllogisms and detachments that force the conclusion. I just have never seen them presented other than from a cultural context, which is not objective, but subjective.


----------



## OPC'n

Archlute said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.
> 
> The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.
Click to expand...


I think you would have to define what you think is immodest. Is it pants, high heels, jewelry, etc? I know that I once went to a Baptist church and all the women were wearing skirts down to their ankles....I was wearing pants bc I didn't know that I was suppose to wear a skirt down to my ankles....I don't even have one and never will. So they clearly felt that pants or even shorter skirts were immodest. Is this your thinking?


----------



## kevin.carroll

Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.

This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.

Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.

I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.


----------



## OPC'n

kevin.carroll said:


> Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.
> 
> This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.
> 
> Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.
> 
> I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.



How am I suppose to know how weak some men are? I don't wear plunging necklines, I don't wear high hemlines bc I don't wear dresses, I wear pants which might be considered clingy just as pants cling to men. So am I suppose to wear the ankle length skirt just to cover my bases in not making some men stumble? Do not those same men have the need to develop self-control?


----------



## Sean Strupp

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.


----------



## Brian Withnell

kevin.carroll said:


> Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.



Perhaps, though some men might have a problem regardless of what is worn.



kevin.carroll said:


> This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.



If the attitude of a woman is what you are saying, then it is a problem. It is also a problem if men not only are tempted, but sin.



kevin.carroll said:


> Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.
> 
> I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.



Agreed. Both men have an obligation to control their thoughts, and women have an obligation to show Christian love to their brothers within the church. Christian love does not tell someone that arrives at your house that is a teetotaler because of conscience that he should be able to drink because it is perfectly okay and serve wine with a meal (when one knows the person has scruples against drinking).


----------



## OPC'n

Sean Strupp said:


> Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.



You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

kevin.carroll said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course! But the Bible does specifically speak to the issue of female modesty in dress, likely because of the weaknesses of men. Our society has become increasingly sexualized and I am sometimes apalled at what Christian women will wear and how equally clueless they are as to its effect on men.
> 
> As an aside, no one seems to have commented on the fact that the brother who began this thread is clearly from a different culture. Modesty is to some extent driven by culture, which may have something to do with why he mentioned shoes.
> 
> Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.
Click to expand...

It is very interesting that you mentioned the generational divide. You're right. I am from a different generation. I do agree that different generations will deal with different denotations of what constitutes "modest apparel." However, I do think that there is a trans culture/generational divide that would allow for some ethical commentary on the situation. I do think that a heel that accentuates too much of the female figure does exhibit an attitude of mutiny. It might not be explicit mutiny, but considering the generational divide, I think that the influences that are imbued in the female who wears these heels--again, I'm using that example loosely--should consider her presuppositions about what she wears. Again I would refer her to my rebuttal and subheads in the original post.


----------



## Sean Strupp

OPC'n said:


> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.
Click to expand...


I never said it was a sin and I thought I was making it clear that those were just thoughts I had. However, the response of the woman _after_ being confronted about something such as heels can be sinful. 
There is a time for everything and I was expressing that a Lord's Day service in my opinion is not the place to wear heals. I may not be able to see your heals and that is irrelevant. Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.


----------



## Brian Withnell

kevin.carroll said:


> Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.



This is absolutely true of the guys that a godly woman would want to attract. I know for a fact that a scantily clad woman would never have become a candidate for marriage. While the temptation to lust might be there, I would not want to befriend a woman that was always "on the edge" of cultural modesty.


----------



## Sean Strupp

Also, the main issue at hand is "the underlying attitude of certain Christians that really bothers me. It is cavalier and frankly too bombastically clothed in mutiny." as jmartinez has expressed. Heels just happened to be the issue we were discussing with another Christian we know. Jmartinez is my brother-in-law by the way and I am part of the reason this conversation came up. haha forgot to mention that.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

OPC'n said:


> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.
Click to expand...


I would refer you to my original post for a Biblical defense of my thesis. Your tag name seems to suggest that you're with the OPC. I would refer you to your creed on church discipline as a basis for the Biblical defense you are looking for:


> " And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, _shall oppose any lawful power_, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or _ecclesiastical_, _resist the ordinance of God_. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation [the same word for conduct]), or to the power of godliness; or, such _erroneous opinions_ or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, _are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church_ [a key clause], _they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church_. . ." WCF 20.4.


Ergo, if the church finds fault, then you are duty bound by reasonable conclusions to submit to the church and its censures. The Biblical bases is inherently found within the text of your confession. To deny that is to deny the tradition of which you belong and its Biblical corollaries. I hope that wasn't too harsh, but this issue needs to be resolved. Again, it isn't about the heels per se, but the underlying attitude that some women have.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Sean Strupp said:


> Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.



I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.


> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.


If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.


----------



## OPC'n

Brian Withnell said:


> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.
> 
> If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.
Click to expand...


This is the best statement on this thread I've read yet. I was beginning to feel horrible about how I dress! Thank you, Brian!


----------



## Brian Withnell

jmartinez83 said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would refer you to my original post for a Biblical defense of my thesis. Your tag name seems to suggest that you're with the OPC. I would refer you to your creed on church discipline as a basis for the Biblical defense you are looking for:
> 
> 
> 
> " And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, _shall oppose any lawful power_, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or _ecclesiastical_, _resist the ordinance of God_. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation [the same word for conduct]), or to the power of godliness; or, such _erroneous opinions_ or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, _are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church_ [a key clause], _they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church_. . ." WCF 20.4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ergo, if the church finds fault, then you are duty bound by reasonable conclusions to submit to the church and its censures. The Biblical bases is inherently found within the text of your confession. To deny that is to deny the tradition of which you belong and its Biblical corollaries. I hope that wasn't too harsh, but this issue needs to be resolved. Again, it isn't about the heels per se, but the underlying attitude that some women have.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. Yet this would mean that the church would have to act with love, and act according to knowledge. The process is not a lot different between the OPC and PCA in this regard (Matt. 18) and it would require investigation, and the accused would have to be brought up on charges that stem from scripture. I certainly would support my session if they came to me with what is lawful use of the authority they possess. I would certainly accept instruction from them. I would want their instruction (and they would certainly provide) a Biblical basis for the need for change in behavior.

That said, I doubt if I wear something a little different to church that the session would take note unless what was worn "stands out" from the culture in which we live.

Please note ... I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that we all must submit to Biblical authority. If I came to church wearing a shirt open to the navel, I would expect I would be counselled about the appropriateness of the clothing. What I would not expect is to be told not to wear what is common in my culture.


----------



## Sean Strupp

Brian Withnell said:


> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.
> 
> If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.
Click to expand...


That depends. Im not talking about some strange man that happens to have a problem with curly hair and confronts a woman. This is obviously a much larger issue than just some guy that happens to be affected by heels. This thread is already two pages long which means there is mixed feelings on the issue. Once again it is the attitude and response of the woman in question that is the issue. If it is a significant problem and she is confronted it is her responsibility to abstain from whatever practice is causing others to stumble.

-----Added 10/2/2009 at 01:47:51 EST-----

Let me add this. This mention of heels in this forum at little to do with what was said. He gave heels as an example because that was the topic of discussion when a "cavalier" response was made. In our situation the heels were an issue and that of vanity and unnecessary attention. There may be no issue at all with anyone else involved in this forum but it was for us. So really we should be discussing the appropriate actions of individuals confronted by others within the church and not heels.


----------



## OPC'n

Sean Strupp said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.
> 
> If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends. Im not talking about some strange man that happens to have a problem with curly hair and confronts a woman. This is obviously a much larger issue than just some guy that happens to be affected by heels. This thread is already two pages long which means there is mixed feelings on the issue. Once again it is the attitude and response of the woman in question that is the issue. If it is a significant problem and she is confronted it is her responsibility to abstain from whatever practice is causing others to stumble.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone would disagree with this. If my whole church saw a problem with how I dressed, I would *want to* change my dress code.....sheer embarrassment would lead me to that change. I would hope that they would base it off of Scripture and not just bc one or two men had a problem with how I dress and want to see all women in long skirts.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Brian Withnell said:


> Sean Strupp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.
> 
> If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.
Click to expand...

OK there needs to be some clarification. I don't think Sean is advocating an autonomous judgment of individual ills. If that were the case, then everyone would be lopping off heads from all quarters. Second, I think there is a basic assumption that what Sean is setting forth is "contrary to the Word," as the WCF says. Clearly we need to protect liberty of conscience:


> So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also


But let's not forget that Peter also admonishes us not to use our liberty as a cloak for ills and vices. That is why I mentioned, in an earlier post, that the Heidelberg Catechism question 85 suggests that it be done firstly in private:


> when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, _after having been often brotherly admonished. . ._ (HC 85).


My aim in this post isn't to defend an individual, by the way. I am really interested in church discipline, and the issues raised in my home really caused concern. So I did a quick summary of the arguments and played with the logic for a bit. I took note of my Biblical presuppositions and my culture's presuppositions. Our ideas and notions of beauty really need to be examined personally. However, all I can do it recommend because this issue isn't clear-cut. It is very difficult to diagnose and there is a morass of opinions out there, even among the faithful.


----------



## AThornquist

Brian Withnell said:


> This is absolutely true of the guys that a godly woman would want to attract. I know for a fact that a scantily clad woman would never have become a candidate for marriage. While the temptation to lust might be there, I would not want to befriend a woman that was always "on the edge" of cultural modesty.



I agree 100%. The temptress is intriguing and tempting in the flesh but it's because she is seen as a tool and a means of worldly pleasure. She definitely isn't given any attention because she is respected or honored. For a wife, godliness is the determining factor. A girl who loves Christ more than she loves any man is ravishingly attractive. 



Brian Withnell said:


> If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.



Good words.


----------



## Edward

jmartinez83 said:


> Can we all agree?



This question, no matter the point behind it, should always be answered 'no'. In a debate, it is manipulative, and usually a sign that a trap is being set. 

So until all of your terms are defined, and I understand where you are trying to go (not where you are coming from), I'll not cede any point. 

Certainly, if the initial debate had just been modesty in the church, my initial reaction would have been quite different. But since I now know how 'modesty' is being defined, I have to wonder how you would define other terms, and what the issues really are. 

To summarize some of the very good points up thread:

It might be the man's problem, rather than the woman's that needs to be most urgently addressed. (Guys who spend time in church obsessing on women's feet probably need help.)

It may be a diaconal issue - does the woman have/ can she afford more suitable attire.

It may be an educational issue - does an older woman (at least older in the faith) need to come along side her and teach her what appropriate attire is? Is proper attire being modeled by such women?

"Can we all agree" that ONLY when these three have been worked through should the session get formally involved? And if the woman is married (or unemancipated) the process should also involve her husband or father?


----------



## Scott1

Edward has a good summary of the biblical issues involved.

Remember also, this sin problem is not new, nor is it so subjective it cannot be obeyed outwardly and with a right heart inwardly.

No Christian is called to live as an island unto themselves, but unto an orientation toward the good of his neighbor, and the honor and glory of God.

If a woman is physically beautiful for a time, for a long time, that's the purpose- to use that gift to the honor and glory of her God.

And if she is also inwardly beautiful, that is better and may we all seek to understand and value that, because that is God's will for us.

That doesn't come "naturally"- that's why we need God's Word made flesh, our Savior.



> 1 Timothy 2:9
> 
> 9In 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;


----------



## Montanablue

> What I would not expect is to be told not to wear what is common in my culture.



Exactly.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Edward said:


> jmartinez83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we all agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question, no matter the point behind it, should always be answered 'no'. In a debate, it is manipulative, and usually a sign that a trap is being set.
> 
> So until all of your terms are defined, and I understand where you are trying to go (not where you are coming from), I'll not cede any point.
> 
> Certainly, if the initial debate had just been modesty in the church, my initial reaction would have been quite different. But since I now know how 'modesty' is being defined, I have to wonder how you would define other terms, and what the issues really are.
> 
> To summarize some of the very good points up thread:
> 
> It might be the man's problem, rather than the woman's that needs to be most urgently addressed. (Guys who spend time in church obsessing on women's feet probably need help.)
> 
> It may be a diaconal issue - does the woman have/ can she afford more suitable attire.
> 
> It may be an educational issue - does an older woman (at least older in the faith) need to come along side her and teach her what appropriate attire is? Is proper attire being modeled by such women?
> 
> "Can we all agree" that ONLY when these three have been worked through should the session get formally involved? And if the woman is married (or unemancipated) the process should also involve her husband or father?
Click to expand...


This is the sort of response that I have received from the opposite side that I am warning about. There can never be a simple answer, namely because there is such a cultural divide on the term "modesty." I think I've made that point incontrovertibly. Second, the reason I asked that question isn't for a trap. The problem in the church isn't innocuous, so I don't have time to play a logical game. Paul himself appends this kind of thinking as sinful and should be avoided (1 Timothy 6:3-4). This sort of accusation, personally, I find to be unfounded. 

Edward mentions the sinful problems men have with the women's dress, be that heels or whatnot. I already covered that. I agreed with subsequent posts on the need for men to deal with their sin(s). What I suggest is not a denotative definition of modesty but a way in which the church censures and/or corrects a female who clearly is offending a significant amount of men in the church. Following an inductive method, I think if there is a good amount of men who find a woman's wear offensive would suggest that there is a problem, similar to my illustration about fires and sirens. Granted there is a problem in the church, I found that beginning with the problem would help resolve the issue. That is the reason I asked that basic question, "Can we all agree?" It wouldn't be personally advantageous to ignore the smell of fire and the sound of the sirens when there is a fire close by.


----------



## he beholds

Montanablue said:


> Sarah, I sympathize. When I was 13, I was told that my wearing jeans to our evening service was causing men to stumble. (Mind you, they weren't even tight.) It was actually a pretty scarring/traumatizing experience to think that there were guys in the church who couldn't control themselves around a pre-pubescent girl wearing pants. This kind of thing causes me to be really cautious about blaming women for men who can't control themselves. Of course, we must be charitable and do what we can to help our brothers. But they also need to take responsibility for their thoughts



That would be traumatizing!!!!



Knoxienne said:


> I like what Hokie Airman said about men's modesty. That's definitely a good example. Another is short sleeves to church. Bill simply will not wear short sleeves to church because he thinks it's disrespectful on a man. But that's him.
> Here is a good example of liberty. I don't know of any other man who thinks that short sleeves on a man is disrespectful! So thankfully Bill has the liberty to wear long sleeves, even in summer, and other men have the liberty to wear polos, even in winter.
> True, we need to be careful to not put all the emphasis on women's modesty. However, as women we also need to be careful about judging whether or not something causes a man to stumble and complaining about how it's not our fault that men can't control themselves. We are responsible to our brothers to strengthen them in their weakness. If we want them to strengthen us in ours, we have to do the same to them.
> I totally agree!!
> Women are not men and we have no concept _at all _as to how they see a woman's body and what stumbles them.
> 
> As women we are not turned on through sight and men are. I don't think this is _completely_ true...We don't understand that as they do and we never will. We have to rely on our brothers to tell us and believe them and strengthen them through our godly response to them under the seventh commandment to be pure in their presence. Yes, they are responsible. However, so are we. David was guilty of adultery and murder. However, if Bathsheba had not been purposefully bathing on the rooftop for every passerby to see, it would have averted a lot of tragedy. And perhaps that sword that never left David's house never would have been an issue.
> I don't know for sure that Bathsheba was guilty of something. Is that in the Bible? If I were on my roof and someone saw me, he'd have to be trying very, very hard to do so. (I may be wrong, and Bathsheba's guilt may be clear, I just don't remember that!)
> 
> -----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:48:58 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female _*servant*_ of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.
> I don't wear heels very often, mostly because I find myself in a state of near-eternal pregnancy. But I have worn heels and the reasons for doing so were to either fit into my long pants (I'm only a little taller than our nurse, sarah) or to match a dress. On the contrary, I have been criticized (not to my face, thankfully!) about wearing flipflops to church, even though they were solid black, not flashy, not high, and very plain. What is a girl to do??
> 
> Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.
> Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We are all each responsible. We do what's right and if others don't do what's right, at least we know we are. And that's all we can do.
Click to expand...



As to the OP, I think the scenario has a problem. How would a man establish if there were three or more of him bothered by a woman's dress? I assume that would mean that they speak about it together, and I think _that_ could lead to more sin than the woman's attire. 

I think, like Matthew 18, if a man is seriously grieved by a woman's attire, he should ask his wife to speak to her. Or his mother, if he is young, or a pastor, who can ask his wife, if he is single. (I know this isn't exactly Matthew 18, but I think it would be wrong for a man to speak directly to someone who isn't his wife.)

I don't know if this would work in the real world, but I _think_ a man would be able to speak to the lady's husband or father, if her immodesty was a problem. 

My husband would kill me before he let me wear anything immodest. But he has no problem with me wearing things that express my personality or fashion sense--be it heels (not likely!) or fun dresses, or anything else that is based on personal preference.


----------



## Mushroom

As Barnhouse once said, some women can be immodest in three dresses and two mink coats, while godly women will look modest even when forced out of their homes in their night clothes by a fire.

It's a heart issue, and completely unrelated to men's self-control, which is an entirely different subject.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Consider, before criticizing them, that these clothes may be the only change they have beside work clothes and they were donated/gifted to them.



Yes, but when they are not, what is the motivation for dressing like a tart? ESPECIALLY married women. Who are they trying to attract? Honestly - what is the motivation for short skirts and heels on a 50 year old woman, even if she looks good in it? Try and find a godly answer there, and "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. This goes doubly true for men, as they are to provide headship and leadership in the home. If I wax my chest and wear open shirts to worship, I hope the elders will tackle me on the way in and give me the talking to I deserve.

One other thing - I have seen that many churches mandate dress codes because their congregations conform themselves to the world first and foremost in their dress. I know of one FRC church in our area here that mandated measurements for wedding dresses. Over the top? Some may think so, but girls were showing up with shorter and shorter skirts and lower and lower necklines, so the church was forced to do _something_. If people would have sobriety of mind in these issues instead of reading 'Vogue' and 'Bride Today' or what have you, then there would be no need for these discussions.



> I use to be this legalistic until I realized that it wasn't a sin and that I should actually identify my sins and work on those instead of making up laws that I could live up to on my own.



Dress codes are not necessarily legalism.



> What I'm getting at is cultural norm. If wearing a loincloth is the cultural norm, then it would not be considered immodest. If wearing a burka was a cultural norm, then having ankles uncovered would be considered immodest. The reaction of men to what is different is more to do with what is common verses what is commanded.



But look at what our culture now considers the 'norm'. This is an extremely dangerous position, In my humble opinion.


----------



## HokieAirman

Just want to add to the conversation...

Male cleavage, front and back is immodest too!



> If I wax my chest and wear open shirts to worship, I hope the elders will tackle me on the way in and give me the talking to I deserve.


 Um, yeah...I've seen a fellow try to this...since I'm still a visitor at my church, I can only hope he was too?

Also, if the ladies find they have two add'l cheeks to powder, then they're probably being a bit immodest no matter what their countenance/attitude is.

Also, I'd say that leather high-heeled boots that come up to the thigh would be immodest.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Male cleavage, front and back is immodest too!



Plumbers, stay home!

There is plenty of room for whitewashed tombs here as well. I have seen (in a rather conservative church) a young lady with high-heeled leather boots to the knee, a short tight skirt, and tight blouse and vest. BUT she was wearing a headcovering, so all was well. :sigh:


----------



## JBaldwin

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." 

While dress codes are useful in certain situations (schools, weddings in churches, work), there is no place for them in church services, In my humble opinion. I have to go along with those who suggest that if a communicant member of a church is _consisently _dressing inappropriately, then someone (preferrably one of the same gender and a good example) should go to that person privately and discuss it. 

Modest dress is a matter of the heart. This needs to be taught as a primary issue. That is why I Peter says that a woman should be adorning the inner person of the heart. If the inner adorning is appropriate, it will manifest itself in the outward appearance. 

I will end my comments with this story. Several years ago, I walked into the bookstore of a well-known christian university which has very high dress standards for the women. I walked down one of the book aisles and saw a woman looking at a book. For the sake of the men reading this, I won't describe the clothing she was wearing, but it was very inappropriate. The first thought that crossed my mind was "how did that woman get on this campus dressed like that?" (She had obviously spent a lot of time arriving at that look) It wasn't until I scanned her clothing a second time that I realized she hadn't broken one dress code rule. Just about that time the woman looked up and I realized it was the wife of the president of the university!


----------



## Megan Mozart

kvanlaan said:


> Consider, before criticizing them, that these clothes may be the only change they have beside work clothes and they were donated/gifted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but when they are not, what is the motivation for dressing like a tart? ESPECIALLY married women. Who are they trying to attract? Honestly - what is the motivation for short skirts and heels on a 50 year old woman, even if she looks good in it? Try and find a godly answer there, and "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash.
Click to expand...


I don't know exactly what you mean by a "short" skirt. If you are talking about a miniskirt, that is probably fine. But if it just means above the knees...

Rom 14:3-4 Let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?

It's alright if you don't like a short skirt and heels. If it's causing a multitude of men to stumble, it might be bad. But the part that is troubling me is you ask "What is the motivation?" And you say, "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. Are you given the ability to know she is lying? Do you really know enough to know that her motives are not appropriate simply because you don't like her dress? 

Rom 14:5 "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Go ahead and have your opinion, but don't hold the other person to it if it's not spelled out in scripture.

Peace and blessings, brother. 

It has also been said that some in this thread are defending their dress because they want just men to be responsible and they want to be able to wear whatever they want. I don't like this because you don't know their heart and their motivations. 

I don't know the right amount of responsibility men or women should have in this, I'm not even touching that, so please don't assume that I am trying to justify being able to wear whatever I want including immodest things. I am just trying to guard against legalism by sharing what I am convinced Romans 14 is saying and I think we need to pay more attention to it. I don't think I'm  because I think I can rightfully infer from some posts that there is some legalism going on. If not, then I want to be cautious and say it anyway, because Romans 14 is worth mentioning in a discussion of this topic if it is in God's word.

However, I will try not to be the legalism police anymore, though it is hard because to me it is so clearly spoken against in this passage and I wish more attention was being paid to it.


----------



## Honor

I want to chime in....
I wear heels (I'm five foot flat and my husband is 6ft2) except when I'm pregnant.

Now if a man comes into church and is looking around and has a problem with what a woman wears on her feet or is noticing his womans tight pants or some cleavage peaking though I would ask: where is this mans focus? Should he not prepare his heart for worship before hand and then when he comes into the house of the Lord he should be more fixated on that fact than on what ANYONE around him is wearing. Plus if a man is stumbling (which is a nice way of saying he's lusting) after a woman in his church because of her clothes Heaven help him if he goes to Walmart, the gas station or any other public place. It doesn't matter if the female is a christian or not... if she is dressed in any way and the man lusts it's his sin. Now christian women are to be dressed modestly and since the Bible clearly is vague on the details of that, I think it should be a matter of the girl conscience and not the man low self control. Some would say Spagetti straps are not modest, or high heels or pants that aren't made of tents. However if you look around you you will see these things just by walking out your front door. It says in the Bible are are to flee every time of sin are you to become a hermit in your house? NO, you are to guard your mind, turn your eyes and try to live at peace with everyone. If a woman were to try to dress to everyones ideal of modesty she would never make a single clothing purchase, because trust me, _some_ guy at _some_ time is going to look at her with lust in his heart. It's threads like these that make women like us second guess everything we own. thus making it ten times longer for me to get dressed in the morning. and that is a shame.

I would also like to add that of course a woman dresses "that way" because it looks good. and when I say "that way" I mean any way from a woman who prides herself on always being modest to the girl who comes in the church from "night shift" I have never heard a woman say "there I look butt ugly, lets go''


----------



## Tripel

Great post Jessica. I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't know exactly what you mean by a "short" skirt. If you are talking about a miniskirt, that is probably fine. But if it just means above the knees...
> 
> Rom 14:3-4 Let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?
> 
> It's alright if you don't like a short skirt and heels. If it's causing a multitude of men to stumble, it might be bad. But the part that is troubling me is you ask "What is the motivation?" And you say, "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. Are you given the ability to know she is lying? Do you really know enough to know that her motives are not appropriate simply because you don't like her dress?
> 
> Rom 14:5 "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Go ahead and have your opinion, but don't hold the other person to it if it's not spelled out in scripture.
> 
> Peace and blessings, brother.



It is not spelled out that women should cover their breasts, it is not spelled out that women should not wear a thong in public, it is not spelled out that men may cavort in a speedo on the street either. BUT I would be hard pressed to say that these are mere issues of conscience. If someone is 'fully convinced in [their] own mind' that there is nothing wrong with that sort of dress, then they need to pick up a commentary and read it for what it really means.

Proverbs 14:12 - There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Hence I would like the motivation for the dress style.


----------



## py3ak

*MODERATOR*

Thread closed. 

I don't think this kind of conversation is likely to be productive until participants consistently distinguish between the various questions that arise, such as:
What is modest clothing? (With its subsidiary questions) 
What is appropriate clothing for church? (With its subsidiary questions)

Perhaps more important is to distinguish between other questions:
How should women dress?
What is a man's responsibility when a woman doesn't dress appropriately?
What is a woman's responsibility when a man inappropriately tells her that he doesn't appreciate her clothing?
How should church leadership handle these clothing-related disputes?
Etc., etc., etc.

But most importantly of all, the problem will not be resolved until people learn to address their own sins without blaming other people for what falls in your area of responsibility. Women shouldn't sit around thinking about what creeps men are. Men shouldn't sit around thinking about how carelessly provocative women are. In my own view, that is the fundamental point that church leadership should address, because no progress can be made until I take responsibility for myself. We all have a tendency to engage in eye surgery when the beams are so thickly entrenched in our own corneas that we're often mistaken for hat stands. _That_ is where *you* can make a contribution to the church's problem in this area.

*/MODERATOR*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I know Ruben has closed this thread but wanted to make a few general observations about discipleship, Christian sanctification, and Pastoral work.

I saw this thread last night and it had trouble written all over it and I knew where it was going to head. I believe the problem was not really posed properly. It's not to say that a problem does not exist but that the way to address problems is not simply to jump to discipline in a matter.

Everyone of us needs to be discipled. While this requires the application of discipline, that discipline takes many forms. I think the key consideration when you are considering the Church of Christ is that all in the Church should be set on the priority that we are to strive _together_ and to spur one another on to love and good works. We ought to see to it that none fall behind. Too often our default setting is to think of ourselves and consider other's falling behind to be "their problem". I'm coming to Church, after all, so that I can be fed. If others aren't getting it done then they need to figure out how to get with an Elder so they can keep up. I think this is fundamentally flawed and ignores direct teaching of the Scriptures to the contrary.

It's interesting that I was just last night listening to Ligon Duncan preaching on the Sermon on the Mount where Ligon Duncan noted the following:


> I’m going to suggest to you that in this passage, Jesus is concerned to reset a default setting for all of His disciples that is deeply ingrained in every one of us. We may think of ourselves as basically loving people, basically nice people. But the fact of the matter is, most of the time that we are loving, we are loving those who love us. Now that can be a challenge because those who love you can hurt you. Those who are close to you can hurt you. But Jesus is especially talking about how we deal with those who do not love us, who really don’t have anything to offer us, and sometimes those who have our positive injury in mind in their actions and their intentions. He is talking about how we are to respond to those who do not love us, and in so doing, He is talking about changing our default settings. Now, in what I’m about to say, there are going to be 674 questions that pop into your mind – “But does it apply here? But does it apply here? But do you always have to do that? But do you always have to do this?” Let me just say very quickly, Jesus is talking about your default setting - what is going to be the standard, believing Christian response to those who do not love you. He is not covering every circumstance of life with this one particular dictum....
> 
> ...But I also know this my friends, when we hear hard and demanding words from Jesus Christ, our temptation is the same temptation from that of the Pharisees. You know what the Pharisees always did? This was always their first question – “When do I not have to obey God’s law? What are the exceptions?” The Pharisees, and you and me, are always looking for loopholes. “But Lord, when do I not have to obey this principle?” Jesus is talking about resetting our default setting so that when we are dealing with those who are unloving and unkind, those who have no claim on our affection and who do not evoke our delight, and some of whom actually seek our harm, He is wanting to reset our default setting so we respond to them in a particular way.
> 
> And what He says is nothing short of breathtaking. This is what He says – “Love your…” and you’re waiting for “neighbor” to come out of His mouth, but that’s not what He says. He says, “Love your enemies.” Jesus is saying that His disciples will love and be merciful to those who do not love and are not merciful to them. Do you hear that exhortation? Love and be merciful to those who don’t love you and aren’t merciful to you and from whom you have nothing to gain. This is a radical, radical command, and the very standard of it separates His people from the world.
> 
> Notice what Jesus says, “Even sinners love those who love them, but My disciples are going to be different. They are going to love even those who don’t love them. They are going to give to even those who can’t give back to them. And they are going to seek the best interest of even those who aren’t seeking their best interest because they’re Mine.”



Jesus was speaking about our enemies. How much more, then, does it apply to those who are Baptized into Christ and demand our toil to see it that none falls behind?

I want to suggest a couple of things:

1. Is our concern about other's dress related solely to the fact that their dress may cause us to sin or are we actually concerned about their growth in grace? Perhaps they might still be spiritually immature and need to better understand how/why modesty has a virtue that glorifies God. Perhaps they may be still carnally minded and our concern would be much deeper that they understand the Gospel.

2. Does the fact that others might be struggling with lust and temptation concern us? Is this something that only the Elders need to help them with?

I'm not suggesting an easy prescription for the problem but it helps if we first understand what the Church of Christ is about and what we are called out of and into. I have much more maturing to do in my own walk with Christ but I can say with Israel that my days have been few and evil and that God, throughout my life, has been very gracious to me. One of the best things he ever did to me, under very hard Providences, was to reveal that my concern for Truth was my sense of personal offense that others were sinning but that, deep down, I didn't really care about that person - only that he/she was sinning. When I began to understand what the Church is, it completely transformed my understanding of the Church. It's almost as if the curtain was lifted from my eyes and I heard the Lord saying to me: "Are not these people that I have purchased with my blood worth your time and concern?"


----------

