# Family Values and Churches



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I get a quite a bit of activity on my blog from persons that are part of CREC due to my stands on family. It's been very frustrating in our own search for a church that holds our views on family and home and yet also Reformed Theology (btw, my friend's reply was "can we just start our own denomination?"...LOL! I totally understand, but then we both believe in things being done appropriately).



The RPCNA constitution takes an almost blunt stance on covenant children education. You would be hard pressed to find a child in an RPCNA church that is not homeschooled or involved in Christian education.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

Gabriel, we looked at the RPCNA before we moved...there are none in the area.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Gabriel, we looked at the RPCNA before we moved...there are none in the area.



Are you not still in PA?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

U2U'd


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Gabriel, we looked at the RPCNA before we moved...there are none in the area.


You are looking to leave the OPC because of your convictions concerning family values?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

Several reasons...issues we've noticed amoung the youth and yes, we would like our children encouraged in certain areas that we feel strongly in that are not very well supported by the OPC.


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Several reasons...issues we've noticed amoung the youth and yes, we would like our children encouraged in certain areas that we feel strongly in that are not very well supported by the OPC.


Maybe this would require another thread and, of course, your willingness to discuss it, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

Okay, here we go.

As you now we are very conservative in several areas. I want my children to be encouraged in these areas (ie modesty, women's roles, homeschooling, quiverfull). Even MY own eyes are offended on a regular basis (and heavens there are my sons to think of!) by the pants worn by girls entering service and nearly showing half their posterior as they sit down.

I don't want my authority undermined either intentionally (has happened in the past) or by peer pressure (no one else does "-").


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 17, 2006)

Have you brought your concerns on these issues before the elders?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

The funny thing is that we were reccomended on more than one occasion by one of the men of the church that we might want to check out the FPC before deciding on membership (we are not members).

Honestly, what good is it going to do...are they REALLY going to go up to these young ladies and tell them how not to dress? I don't expect that. I also don't expect the pastor to change his mind on things. I like and appreciate the pastor...but we are the odd ones out...thus it is for us to find those of like beliefs. I'm speaking with one of the board members here as well and there might be ANOTHER church option for us...but furthur away. That will give us two other like minded churches to look into.

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay, here we go.
> 
> As you now we are very conservative in several areas. I want my children to be encouraged in these areas (ie modesty, women's roles, homeschooling, quiverfull). Even MY own eyes are offended on a regular basis (and heavens there are my sons to think of!) by the pants worn by girls entering service and nearly showing half their posterior as they sit down.
> ...


There are certainly a lot of factors that go into this issue . . but, ditto the the above: have you talked with your elders about this? Do they know you are considering moving to another church?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

We posted simultaneously...LOL! Yes, they reccomended that we look before we settle. We will be speaking to the one that suggested that and to let him know that that is what we have decided to do.


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> The funny thing is that we were reccomended on more than one occasion by one of the men of the church that we might want to check out the FPC before deciding on membership (we are not members).
> 
> Honestly, what good is it going to do...are they REALLY going to go up to these young ladies and tell them how not to dress? I don't expect that. I also don't expect the pastor to change his mind on things. I like and appreciate the pastor...but we are the odd ones out...thus it is for us to find those of like beliefs. I'm speaking with one of the board members here as well and there might be ANOTHER church option for us...but furthur away. That will give us two other like minded churches to look into.
> ...


You have expressed to the pastor and elders your concern for the lack of modesty in the church? What was their response?

It's certainly not wrong to desire modest dress . . but I think some of our fundamentalist brethren have given modesty a legalistic taint. I've listened to some superb teaching on modesty by the pastor of Franklin Square OPC . . it's on sermonaudio, if you're interested.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 17, 2006)

Colleen

Do you know much about the City your church is in? I know it should have no influence in the body of Christ, but the stastics about that City might just "blow your mind". Let me know if you're intrested.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 17, 2006)

A question:

Would your children be more harmed if they saw inappropriate dress, or chaos on baptism (i.e. infant baptism or not, immersion or not, it really doesn't matter, do what you want), and children partaking of the Lord's Supper without examination?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

No, I haven't been specific. But when we first arrived, they knew our stance and it was one of the first things reccomended to us (to look at the FPC).

I don't think the FPC is legalistic...most of the women only cover for services (and they are permitted to apply that by whatever means they will), and most of the women (though wearing dresses for services) will wear pants elsewhere...there's what I can say is a mix.

My problem isn't the legalism/liberalism issue...but rather that WE are responsible for our children and would like a church that we won't have to fight against the current to be in. It's enough to deal with the world on those issues...but to have to deal with it in the church body is a strain.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Colleen
> 
> Do you know much about the City your church is in? I know it should have no influence in the body of Christ, but the stastics about that City might just "blow your mind". Let me know if you're intrested.



I'm sure! You know that city pretty well...and it's a mess!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> A question:
> 
> Would your children be more harmed if they saw inappropriate dress, or chaos on baptism (i.e. infant baptism or not, immersion or not, it really doesn't matter, do what you want), and children partaking of the Lord's Supper without examination?



That is something that we also have to weigh out. Both can be dangerous...so do I want to agree to sit through mixed baptisms or only congregate with those that may encourage rebellion in my child? 

Due to a situation that happened this past autumn we are extremely cautious on one end...and due to family here, we have to be extremely cautious on the other.

That's last part (on communion) is not something that I saw on their website...explain?


BTW, that is why I am also considering another church that was reccomended an hour or so ago via U2U.


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> No, I haven't been specific. But when we first arrived, they knew our stance and it was one of the first things reccomended to us (to look at the FPC).
> 
> I don't think the FPC is legalistic...most of the women only cover for services (and they are permitted to apply that by whatever means they will), and most of the women (though wearing dresses for services) will wear pants elsewhere...there's what I can say is a mix.
> ...


Do you think covering your head (with an item of clothing) and wearing a dress is necessary during worship? I'm asking these questions out of pure ignorance . . I don't know you very well, nor am I aware of your particular stance. :bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

Yes, I do. I will not enter a sanctuary without my head covered. 

I also believe strongly in modesty and dresses/skirts (of a modest, not short or revealing nature) accomplish that (as well as distinguishing difference between female and male clothing) and is the standard that my husband has set for our family.


----------



## Puddleglum (Apr 17, 2006)

Personally, I'd be very hesitant to leave a church because of how people dressed . . . would it be possible for you to sit towards the front of the sanctuary during the service? (So that you and your family don't have to be distracted by the unconvered posteriors). 

There is always going to be something that some of the other families in the church let their kids do that your family doesn't. I'm not saying that as a slam against your family - it's just that every family is going to be different. For example - I was never allowed to wear a skirt above my knees, other girls at church were and did. But other families had stricter curfews (there was a time when, if I got permission to be out, the only rule was that I wasn't to wake anyone up when I got back). Your kids will always have someone to say "but their parents let them do it" about. So I wouldn't necessarily leave because of that . . . and btw, I'm still careful about my hemline, thanks to my mom's insistance when I was younger, despite what some of the other girls at church wore! 

Maybe if you stayed you could over time develop relationships with the girls or their mothers - and that way be able to gently correct their dressing habits. (Pants v. skirts aside - one's posterior should always be covered thoroughly!)

If you can find a church that you agree with doctrinally and that has family norms closer to yours - great!  But I'd stick the doctrine above the family norms . . . different teaching (mom says this, pastor says that, last pastor said something else) can be pretty confusing for kids to work through, and my guess is that a more baptistic (FPC is mixed, right?) church would have some fundamentally different attitudes than you, which could end up causing a lot more issues. 

Guess that's my  . . . and I'll try to remember to pray for wisdom for you and your husband!


----------



## Ambrose (Apr 17, 2006)

If a church's doctrine is so wonderful, why would families feel perfectly comfortable dressing their daughters like whores? 

I suppose I would expect that if the Word were being faithfully preached, the people of the church would be bearing the fruit of the Spirit rather than baring their backsides.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Yes, I do. I will not enter a sanctuary without my head covered.
> 
> I also believe strongly in modesty and dresses/skirts (of a modest, not short or revealing nature) accomplish that (as well as distinguishing difference between female and male clothing) and is the standard that my husband has set for our family.


Please don't read any disrespect in this statement (because I don't mean any!), but I don't think a high view on family standards is contingent on women wearing head-coverings and dresses. 

I think the topics of lust, Sabbath-keeping, and modesty are similar in this sense: Internal obedience to the command is required, and external obedience may take on different forms.

One family may decide to remove the TV from their home on account of too many questionable images of women being broadcast, another may decide keep the TV in the home . . both families are striving to obey God, but that sometimes has different external manifestations.

Similarly, Sabbath-keeping. One family may forbid taking a walk on Sunday, another allow it. And with modesty, one family may want their girls wearing skirts this long, another that long.

The church must proclaim God's law, in all of its fulness. And the church has the right to require a certain level of external conformity (and much wisdom is required here). But, for the church to say, "women must wear dresses/skirts" or "dresses/skirts must be such and such a length" seems, in my opinion, to add to God's law.

We must never come to the conclusion that because we conform externally to some standard that we are fully obeying God's law (and I'm not saying that you're saying this!) -- such is what the Pharisee's thought, and what Jesus condemned them for.

So, this applied to your situation . . I'd be careful in looking for a church that conforms to the external standards of your family, but rather, look for a church that preaches and teaches God's law, and where the families (imperfectly, even externally) aim to obey it by God's grace.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

Okay, I believe there is some misunderstanding here. I'm NOT expecting EVERY person to conform to my views of modesty and headcovering...however, I don't wish for our family to be the ONLY ones holding this view or to have to be concerned that others are going to try to undermine my authority with my children by teaching them that "it doesn't matter" either. Our church this past autumn (before our move) was militant about this matter behind our back...our daughter was forced to change her clothes (putting on another's daughter's pants and shorts) when she was at their house...we had no idea this was happening until we moved...they encouraged our daughter to keep silent about it. There were other disturbing things that happened and because WE didn't conform their were horrible rumors spread amoung other issues. Thus, we DO have a concern. We DO not want our beliefs shoved to the side (ie the headcovering).


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

Your former church forced your daughter to put on pants?




Hmm . . I'm sorry to hear they'd do something like that.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 17, 2006)

One of the members...he dragged in several other families into the gossip, etc. Like I said...it was a horrible situation.

I know you would, rightfully, have a fit if I forced your daughter into a skirt behind your back and told her how wrong you were, etc. I do not believe in undermining a parent's authority over their own child. 

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Puddleglum (Apr 17, 2006)

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying a bit better now . . . I definately agree that other parents shouldn't be forcing your children to go against your rules (and keep quiet about it)! And I can see how that would make you cautious. 
Being the only one isn't always a bad thing . . . I guess it depends a lot on the attitude of the other families . . . we were once part of a church where we were the only homeschoolers. It worked fine, and by the time we left (b/c we moved) another family was homeschooling one of their daughters. But, before we came, there had been another family that was homeschooling and that didn't go so good for them - so we had the advantage of not being the ones to introduce this crazy idea!


----------



## Casey (Apr 17, 2006)

In terms of children's education, my former church and my present church both had a pretty fair share of families doing homeschooling, Christian schooling, and public schooling. At both churches, education is taken seriously . . and I have never found this subject (for example) to be a contentious one in the churches.

Again, I'm sorry to hear that such things happened to you at your last church.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> The funny thing is that we were reccomended on more than one occasion by one of the men of the church that we might want to check out the FPC before deciding on membership (we are not members).



This is interesting. I don't know you or them, but if the attitude is (whether expressed or merely implied) "you might want to check out the FPC because we don't want your legalism and ideas about homeschooling around here because it might cause trouble" then I find that to be disturbing. It smacks of a cafeteria approach to Chrisitianity and also perhaps, rank denominationalism, i.e. we do it this way here but you might find the church down the road to be more to your liking. 

For similar reasons I have problems with the FPC's punting on baptism. Is the Bible unclear on this issue? Either paedobaptism is scriptural, or it is not. Allowing for both is basically relativistic and amounts to doctrinal indifferentism. 



> Honestly, what good is it going to do...are they REALLY going to go up to these young ladies and tell them how not to dress? I don't expect that.
> 
> [Edited on 4-17-2006 by LadyFlynt]



Well we OUGHT to expect that, unless the pastor and elders are hirelings, in my opinion. The elders should speak to the girls father, or if these are single young women, perhaps some of the ladies could take them aside as the first step in correcting their immodesty. 

I have been to a couple of OPC churches and have seen no immodesty to speak of, but have seen it in spades in broader evangelical churches, with, as you say, practically half of the backside being exposed with "low rider" jeans, etc. (I could get more graphic, but I think we'll leave it at that  ) I don't think you'd find that such is tolerated in OPC churches generally, but if it is at this particular one, that is disappointing to say the least. 

I know this is an old thread, but I had gotten busy earlier and wanted to add my


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 7, 2006)

Chris, I think these ppl were not meaning to view us as legalist..but I think they probably saw that there might be an issue for us (on our side of things).

I know we OUGHT to expect ministry to step up in these cases, but unfortunately most of us have learn NOT to expect it...it just doesn't happen.

Don't worry about the FPC...we also had an issue with them being unified on something as simple as covering/modesty, but not being unified on something as IMPORTANT as baptism...it was simply backwards to us.

We have taken up a suggestion that was made by a couple of other gents on this board...today was our 3rd Sunday there...I'll be quiet as to where until hubby has laid down a mandated decision for me...then I will add it to my sig line. I've already informed the board admins and mods though on what we are doing and where are attending.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Chris, I think these ppl were not meaning to view us as legalist..but I think they probably saw that there might be an issue for us (on our side of things).
> 
> I know we OUGHT to expect ministry to step up in these cases, but unfortunately most of us have learn NOT to expect it...it just doesn't happen.
> ...


----------



## Dave L (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Our church this past autumn (before our move) was militant about this matter behind our back...our daughter was forced to change her clothes (putting on another's daughter's pants and shorts) when she was at their house...we had no idea this was happening until we moved...they encouraged our daughter to keep silent about it.



Woah! If she was forced to change clothes and "encouraged" to keep silent, that is verging on abuse. At the very least the church should have issued the other family with a stern reprimand.

I pray that the new church you are attending will be a suitable spiritual home for both you and your family.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dave L_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Actually, I believe the minister there was possibly in on it...or at least led to believe things that were not wholly accurate. It DID go beyond the clothes...to what we would consider abuse. Supposedly our daughter wasn't washing herself properly (like they should be watching or asking her those questions!  ). This was told to the pastor and my husband...but not in detail...I later found out what the detail left out was. I was wondering why my daughter was having "itchies" again. She is very allergic to things on her skin...including soap in certain areas that are considered self-cleansing organs on young children anyhow by the medical establishment. Thus, between that irritation being added (when her ped said we were to avoid soap there!) and being bound up in pants (skirts allow more air flow). As a momma, they are fortunate I didn't find out till we moved...I would have been turning social services around back to them! (yes, they called the week we were moving, social services gave us a clean bill and enjoyed seeing children that were obviously well loved and taken care of).

We've learned to be wiser...there is no such thing as sleepovers, we don't let ppl watch our children, and we've discusses personal safety with our daughter (what is appropriate for ppl to ask and not ask). I've heard horror stories from other growing up...but this became our own personal horror story. I've gotten past it...just the wiser for it. 

[Edited on 5-10-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> Don't worry about the FPC...we also had an issue with them being unified on something as simple as covering/modesty, but not being unified on something as IMPORTANT as baptism...it was simply backwards to us.



This is a very wise statement. Would that more ministers and elders would understand it.

May God give us grace to live out His priorities.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Fred...I also want to say Thank you for pointing it out. I know I got a bit aggravated when you did, simply because I was frustrated feeling like I have to "choose" between things that were BOTH important to me.


----------



## CDM (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dave L_
> ...



Is there a Presbytery involved with that church? It sounds like charges or complaints should be brought to them and quick discipline and rebuke is needed.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 10, 2006)

Nope...it was an independant bible church that didn't have any such thing as "membership" (yet social services were supposedly called because we weren't going to be around for "discipline"?! He had other accusations, but I have evidence to the contrary...such as my son's homeschool records showing that we WERE homeschooling according to law and an evaluation to prove it now, etc).

Now you see why I said we wish we had stayed in the PCA while we were there...

I also wanted to let it go, because we don't want them obtaining our address, etc. I keep records of the reports and the last email contact I have from the person. I've even written up a rebuttal, if it were ever needed. I've also explained the situation to family (bil was there the day ss showed up, etc). We have family here as well as there.

[Edited on 5-10-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



You're welcome. I've learned that lesson myself, and I was not always enthusiastic about it also.


----------

