# Face Paint - MakeUp



## Coram Deo

Do not paint your face, which is God's workmanship. For there is no part of you that lacks beauty. For God has made all things very good. But the wanton extra adorning of what is already good is an affront to the Creator's work. 
Apostolic Consitutions (compiled circa 390 AD), 7.395; extended discussion 5.432-5.436​

Some do not believe that the scripture speaks against the evils of makeup.. I believe that the scriptures does indeed speak about make up and in facts condemns the use of make up. Let us look at a few passages...

"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace who slew his master? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he said, Throw her down. And they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot. And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her for she is a king's daughter. And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel: And the carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel." (2 Ki. 9:30-37) 

"The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein. And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, *though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.* For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her than bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands saying, Woe is me now! for my souls is wearied because of murderers." (Jer. 4:29-31) 

"The Lord said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain theu children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house. 
And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments, And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil. And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads. Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them? Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women. And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands. For thus saith the Lord God; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled. And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire. Thus will I cause the lewdness to cease out of the land, that all the women may be taught not to do after your lewdness. And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord God." (Eze. 23:36-49) 

Let us now consider these passages. The first is the bloody end of the career of the most notorious female in the Bible, whose very name is become synonymous with whoredom, lewdness, and all feminine dishonor. The second is a prophecy which God makes against Judah, the sum of which is that in the day of her judgments her adulteries which served her in time past will fail her in the day of her visitation, the practice of painting being one particular similitude relating her adulterous practices. The third is a comparison between the sin of Israel and that of Judah, likening them both unto whorish women, and likening their spiritual adulteries with false gods as the enticements of a whore luring a prey, one such lure being her painting of the eyes. 

Such is the scripture witness on face painting. 

Now I ask candid minds: Is it really difficult to see the mind of God in this? Is His will hidden here? Is God likening these practices as fit representations of female whoredom somehow indicative that they are indifferent practices upon which He has made no express indication of His will? Can you not be made to acquiesce in matters so biblically plain? What further argument were necessary to communicate beyond controversy that a practice is forbidden in the scriptures than to prove that God likens it to the arts of whoredom? No higher degree of biblical evidence could be submitted as proof of it's unlawfulness, and if this is insufficient then the Bible is meaningless as far as being the foundation of a moral code of ethics. What answer will men make to this? 

Let us not suppose that God is not grieved when our women are attired immodestly or painted like infamous women. Let us not suppose they may forsake their callings as mothers, sacrificing their children in the fires of Molech. No, let us only repent and then let us seek the Lord, knowing that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Historical Testimony

_*He [God] takes away anxious care for clothes, food, and all luxuries as being unnecessary. What are we to imagine, then, should be said about love of embellishments, the dyeing of wool, and the variety of colors? What should be said about the love of gems, exquisite working of gold, and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls? Furthermore, what should be said about staining the eyes, plucking out hairs, painting with rouge and white lead, dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions? Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD), 2.264

Nor are the women to smear their faces with the ensnaring devices of wily cunning. But let us show to them the decoration of sobriety. Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD), 2.286

For those women sin against God when they rub their skin with ointments, stain their cheeks with rouge, and make their eyes prominent with antimony. To them, I suppose, the artistic skill of God is displeasing! Tertullian (circa 198 AD), 4.20

I will then see whether you will rise [at the resurrection] with your ceruse and rouge and saffron — and in all that parade of headgear. I will then see whether it will be women thus decked out whom the angels carry up to meet Christ in the air! If these things are now good, and of God, they will then also present themselves to the rising bodies. Tertullian (circa 198 AD), 4.22.

A woman should not be adorned in a worldly fashion. . .. "Let your women be such as adorn themselves with shamefacedness and modesty, not with twisted hair, nor with gold, nor with pearls, or precious garments." Cyprian (circa 250 AD), 5.544.

What will I say of the fact that these [young women] of ours confess their change of age even by their garb! As soon as they have understood themselves to be women,... they lay aside their former selves. They change their hair and fasten their hair with more wanton pins, professing obvious womanhood with their hair parted from the front. The next thing, they consult the mirror to aid their beauty. They thin down their over-exacting face with washing. Perhaps they even dress it up with cosmetics. They toss their mantle about them with an air, fit tightly into the multiform shoe, and carry down more ample appliances to the baths. Tertullian (circa 207 AD), 4.35.

"Now Susannah was a very delicate woman." This does not mean that she had flashy adornments on herself or eyes painted with various colors — as Jezebel had. Rather, it means she had the adornment of faith, chastity, and sanctity. Hippolytus (circa 205 AD), 5.193.

Both sexes alike should be admonished that the work of God and His fashioning and formation should in no manner be adulterated — either with the application of yellow color, black dust, rouge, or with any kind of cosmetic.... God says, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." Does anyone dare to alter and change what God has made? Cyprian (circa 250 AD), 5.434.

In their manners, there was no discipline.... In women, their complexion was dyed. Their eyes were falsified from what God's hand had made them. Their hair was stained with a falsehood. Cyprian (circa 250 AD), 5.438.

Do not paint your face, which is God's workmanship. For there is no part of you that lacks beauty. For God has made all things very good. But the wanton extra adorning of what is already good is an affront to the Creator's work. Apostolic Consitutions (compiled circa 390 AD), 7.395; extended discussion 5.432-5.436*_


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

I will say that I don't like makeup too much, not really a moral stance on my part but as a preference, a woman who turns your head without makeup is truly quite attractive.


----------



## Poimen

Brother, I am going to have to disagree. 

1) Jezebel's face painting had more to do with, in the words of Matthew Henry dazzling Jehu "that she might appear like herself, that is (as she thought), great and majestic, hoping thereby to daunt Jehu, to put him out of countenance, and to stop his career". I don't see the need to associate makeup with adultery, prostitution or any sin in particular. 

2) Much like Jezebel, the inhabitants of the fallen city try to mask their judgment and entice their pursuers through outward adornments. Not wrong _per se_ but certainly used for the wrong purpose. And note that they also wear 'ornaments of gold' something which is spoken rather highly of in the Song of Solomon. 

3) The context is idolatry. The makeup is a part and parcel of the idolatry because it is put on for that reason. But notice that they also wash themselves! To be consistent one would have to say that washing would also be included in the list of prohibitions. But Leviticus has a lot of positive things to say about that. 

To sum up: make up is wrong if one is using it to mask sin or their true character. But the scriptures no where forbid such a thing _in se_. Indeed your case would be much stronger if you had cited a law from the Pentateuch for that end. 

After all many things we do, even biblical things, can be associated with evil but why can we (women - not the guys!) not in Christian liberty do so without participating in the sin?

In regards to the church fathers there is much talk about the love of these things not, in every case, the simply application of some makeup. Furthermore the church fathers were a tad gnostic in their views of woman, marriage and all things physical. So if they are actually saying what you are stating, I am still more than a little skeptical in imbibing that sort of world view which often comes packaged with such statements. 

So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, with the understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements). But if the Song of Solomon has anything to teach us, women may use adornments, ointments etc. Let all things be done in moderation.


----------



## Bygracealone

In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Bygracealone said:


> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."



Indeed.


----------



## Davidius

Way to take a bunch of verses dealing with vain pride and idolatry out of context and completely skip over Song of Solomon.


----------



## Poimen

Bygracealone said:


> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."





Okay but I am guessing that is not something one should say to their wife, fiancee, girlfriend or even a girl that one is dating/courting. Unless you like getting beat up by a woman.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

*Sorry, I do not get it??*



John


----------



## Herald

> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements).



And seeing as my wife has such natural beauty as to not need cosmetics, this is a non-issue for me.

P.S. It's Valentines Day and I need all the props I can get!


----------



## Herald

Sydnorphyn said:


> John



John, of course not. If it's not Markian, fishing, golf, book or Mac related in normally sails over you head.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And seeing as my wife has such natural beauty as to not need cosmetics, this is a non-issue for me.
> 
> P.S. It's Valentines Day and I need all the props I can get!
Click to expand...


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Bygracealone said:


> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."




I was just thinking about that quote myself. 

Thanks.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Poimen said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay but I am guessing that is not something one should say to their wife, fiancee, girlfriend or even a girl that one is dating/courting. Unless you like getting beat up by a woman.
Click to expand...



Espessially on Valentine's Day!!!


----------



## Pilgrim

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


I can hear him saying that now.


----------



## Pilgrim

Davidius said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And seeing as my wife has such natural beauty as to not need cosmetics, this is a non-issue for me.
> 
> P.S. It's Valentines Day and I need all the props I can get!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

The true motives for face painting are truly of a immoral character, and it's nature must not be covered over for conveniency sake, but the charge pressed, and made good. Face painting is, really, just one of many modern practices concerning feminine modesty which crave attention in our day.

Face Painting or Make up IS VAIN. Idolatry is spoken, but is not alone here in these passages and of course Make up is Idolatrous in and of itself...

You did not like the quotes I gave from the church fathers... Well let me quote from a Puritan before Matthew Henry's Time.... William Prynne, a Puritan, criticized harshly many of the abuses of dress stalking about in his own day. 

Prynne carries on about things like women cutting or dying their hair, extravagance of dress, and, of course, face painting. Perhaps some of the dresses were coming up off the ankles, and dropping below the collar line! That was time to sound an alarm! 

Many Puritans were in line with Prynne.. What were the passages that he and they used against face painting... The ones I used..... Jer. 4:29-31, Eze. 23:36-49, 2 Ki. 9:30-37. 

You should read William Prynne's work "The vnlouelinesse, of loue-lockes" I hope you would not accuse him of Gnosticism. 




Poimen said:


> Brother, I am going to have to disagree.
> 
> 1) Jezebel's face painting had more to do with, in the words of Matthew Henry dazzling Jehu "that she might appear like herself, that is (as she thought), great and majestic, hoping thereby to daunt Jehu, to put him out of countenance, and to stop his career". I don't see the need to associate makeup with adultery, prostitution or any sin in particular.
> 
> 2) Much like Jezebel, the inhabitants of the fallen city try to mask their judgment and entice their pursuers through outward adornments. Not wrong _per se_ but certainly used for the wrong purpose. And note that they also wear 'ornaments of gold' something which is spoken rather highly of in the Song of Solomon.
> 
> 3) The context is idolatry. The makeup is a part and parcel of the idolatry because it is put on for that reason. But notice that they also wash themselves! To be consistent one would have to say that washing would also be included in the list of prohibitions. But Leviticus has a lot of positive things to say about that.
> 
> To sum up: make up is wrong if one is using it to mask sin or their true character. But the scriptures no where forbid such a thing. Indeed your case would be much stronger if you had cited a law from the Pentateuch for that end.
> 
> After all, many things we do, even biblical things, are associated with evil but why can we (women - not the guys!) not in Christian liberty do so as well?
> 
> In regards to the church fathers there is much talk about the love of these things not, in every case, the simply application of some makeup. Furthermore the church fathers were a tad gnostic in their views of woman, marriage and all things physical. So if they are actually saying what you are stating, I am still more than a little skeptical in imbibing that sort of world view that often comes packaged with such statements.
> 
> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, with the understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements). But if the Song of Solomon has anything to teach us, women may use adornments, ointments etc. Let all things be done in moderation.


----------



## Dena

thunaer said:


> The true motives for face painting are truly of a immoral character, and it's nature must not be covered over for conveniency sake, but the charge pressed, and made good. Face painting is, really, just one of many modern practices concerning feminine modesty which crave attention in our day.
> 
> Face Painting or Make up IS VAIN. Idolatry is spoken, but is not alone here in these passages and of course Make up is Idolatrous in and of itself...
> 
> You did not like the quotes I gave from the church fathers... Well let me quote from a Puritan before Matthew Henry's Time.... William Prynne, a Puritan, criticized harshly many of the abuses of dress stalking about in his own day.
> 
> Prynne carries on about things like women cutting or dying their hair, extravagance of dress, and, of course, face painting. Perhaps some of the dresses were coming up off the ankles, and dropping below the collar line! That was time to sound an alarm!
> 
> Many Puritans were in line with Prynne.. What were the passages that he and they used against face painting... The ones I used..... Jer. 4:29-31, Eze. 23:36-49, 2 Ki. 9:30-37.
> 
> You should read William Prynne's work "The vnlouelinesse, of loue-lockes" I hope you would not accuse him of Gnosticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I am going to have to disagree.
> 
> 1) Jezebel's face painting had more to do with, in the words of Matthew Henry dazzling Jehu "that she might appear like herself, that is (as she thought), great and majestic, hoping thereby to daunt Jehu, to put him out of countenance, and to stop his career". I don't see the need to associate makeup with adultery, prostitution or any sin in particular.
> 
> 2) Much like Jezebel, the inhabitants of the fallen city try to mask their judgment and entice their pursuers through outward adornments. Not wrong _per se_ but certainly used for the wrong purpose. And note that they also wear 'ornaments of gold' something which is spoken rather highly of in the Song of Solomon.
> 
> 3) The context is idolatry. The makeup is a part and parcel of the idolatry because it is put on for that reason. But notice that they also wash themselves! To be consistent one would have to say that washing would also be included in the list of prohibitions. But Leviticus has a lot of positive things to say about that.
> 
> To sum up: make up is wrong if one is using it to mask sin or their true character. But the scriptures no where forbid such a thing. Indeed your case would be much stronger if you had cited a law from the Pentateuch for that end.
> 
> After all, many things we do, even biblical things, are associated with evil but why can we (women - not the guys!) not in Christian liberty do so as well?
> 
> In regards to the church fathers there is much talk about the love of these things not, in every case, the simply application of some makeup. Furthermore the church fathers were a tad gnostic in their views of woman, marriage and all things physical. So if they are actually saying what you are stating, I am still more than a little skeptical in imbibing that sort of world view that often comes packaged with such statements.
> 
> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, with the understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements). But if the Song of Solomon has anything to teach us, women may use adornments, ointments etc. Let all things be done in moderation.
Click to expand...



with this line of thinking, you should also probably never brush your hair, shave (especially women), and you should never clip your nails....

just to name a few


----------



## Coram Deo

Let the head of men be clipped, unless they have curly hair. But let the chin have the hair. ... Cutting is to be used, not for the sake of elegance, but on account of the necessity of the case ... so that it may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes. Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD), 2.286.

This [male] sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own. I am referring to things such as . . . arranging the hair, and disguising its hoariness by dyes. Tertullian (circa 198 AD), 4.22.

Though in the form of men, they . . . curl their hair with curling pins, make the skin of the body smooth, and they walk with bare knees. In every other type of wantonness, they lay aside the strength of their masculinity and grow effeminate in women's habits and luxury. Arnobius (circa 305 AD), 6.450.

[To the men...] Do not adorn yourself in such a manner that you might entice another woman to you.... Do not further enhance the beauty that God and nature has bestowed on you. Rather, modestly diminish it before others. Therefore, do not permit the hair of your head to grow too long. Rather, cut it short.... Do not wear overly fine garments, either.... Nor should you put a gold ring on your fingers. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled circa 390 AD), 7.392.






Dena said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true motives for face painting are truly of a immoral character, and it's nature must not be covered over for conveniency sake, but the charge pressed, and made good. Face painting is, really, just one of many modern practices concerning feminine modesty which crave attention in our day.
> 
> Face Painting or Make up IS VAIN. Idolatry is spoken, but is not alone here in these passages and of course Make up is Idolatrous in and of itself...
> 
> You did not like the quotes I gave from the church fathers... Well let me quote from a Puritan before Matthew Henry's Time.... William Prynne, a Puritan, criticized harshly many of the abuses of dress stalking about in his own day.
> 
> Prynne carries on about things like women cutting or dying their hair, extravagance of dress, and, of course, face painting. Perhaps some of the dresses were coming up off the ankles, and dropping below the collar line! That was time to sound an alarm!
> 
> Many Puritans were in line with Prynne.. What were the passages that he and they used against face painting... The ones I used..... Jer. 4:29-31, Eze. 23:36-49, 2 Ki. 9:30-37.
> 
> You should read William Prynne's work "The vnlouelinesse, of loue-lockes" I hope you would not accuse him of Gnosticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I am going to have to disagree.
> 
> 1) Jezebel's face painting had more to do with, in the words of Matthew Henry dazzling Jehu "that she might appear like herself, that is (as she thought), great and majestic, hoping thereby to daunt Jehu, to put him out of countenance, and to stop his career". I don't see the need to associate makeup with adultery, prostitution or any sin in particular.
> 
> 2) Much like Jezebel, the inhabitants of the fallen city try to mask their judgment and entice their pursuers through outward adornments. Not wrong _per se_ but certainly used for the wrong purpose. And note that they also wear 'ornaments of gold' something which is spoken rather highly of in the Song of Solomon.
> 
> 3) The context is idolatry. The makeup is a part and parcel of the idolatry because it is put on for that reason. But notice that they also wash themselves! To be consistent one would have to say that washing would also be included in the list of prohibitions. But Leviticus has a lot of positive things to say about that.
> 
> To sum up: make up is wrong if one is using it to mask sin or their true character. But the scriptures no where forbid such a thing. Indeed your case would be much stronger if you had cited a law from the Pentateuch for that end.
> 
> After all, many things we do, even biblical things, are associated with evil but why can we (women - not the guys!) not in Christian liberty do so as well?
> 
> In regards to the church fathers there is much talk about the love of these things not, in every case, the simply application of some makeup. Furthermore the church fathers were a tad gnostic in their views of woman, marriage and all things physical. So if they are actually saying what you are stating, I am still more than a little skeptical in imbibing that sort of world view that often comes packaged with such statements.
> 
> So if a woman wants to enhance her natural beauty with makeup, adornments etc. let her do so, with the understanding that her beauty in the Lord is sufficient for her salvation (which I believe was the main point of the EC statements). But if the Song of Solomon has anything to teach us, women may use adornments, ointments etc. Let all things be done in moderation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> with this line of thinking, you should also probably never brush your hair, shave (especially women), and you should never clip your nails....
> 
> just to name a few
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Botox it baby


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.



From what I can tell, the passages are condemning the over-use of such things, not a moderate usage. Some women need to use make-up as they would look unwell otherwise. Its not really much different to using soap to wash your face.

I really wish that people would realize there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1) and stop making such a big deal out of small matters.

The time that is wasted in pedantic discussions over trifles could surely be much better employed in something more productive.


----------



## Coram Deo

Daniel,

I disagree with you.... I have quoted Church Fathers, and Even Puritans on this matter.. They disagree with you. It is not some "doubtful thing"..

Bill, 

I just want to say that I know this is not a democracy so I am going to bail out at this point.. I totally disagree with you... I believe the Puritans also disagree with you over it being a Christian Liberty issue but I am a mere peon on here so that is really all I have to say......






Daniel Ritchie said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can tell, the passages are condemning the over-use of such things, not a moderate usage. Some women need to use make-up as they would look unwell otherwise. Its not really much different to using soap to wash your face.
> 
> I really wish that people would realize there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1) and stop making such a big deal out of small matters.
> 
> The time that is wasted in pedantic discussions over trifles could surely be much better employed in something more productive.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Michael

A doubtful thing refers to a small matter (not an inconsequential matter), you, however, have compared it to idolatry - are you going to break-off fellowship with such idolaters? The fact you have quoted Puritans is irrelevant - is truth determined by a head count? Moreover, is a Christian woman wearing a small amount of make-up really the same thing as the face-painting of Jezebel? 






thunaer said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I disagree with you.... I have quoted Church Fathers, and Even Puritans on this matter.. They disagree with you. It is not some "doubtful thing"..
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I just want to say that I know this is not a democracy so I am going to bail out at this point.. I totally disagree with you... I believe the Puritans also disagree with you but I am a mere peon on here so that is really all I have to say......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can tell, the passages are condemning the over-use of such things, not a moderate usage. Some women need to use make-up as they would look unwell otherwise. Its not really much different to using soap to wash your face.
> 
> I really wish that people would realize there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1) and stop making such a big deal out of small matters.
> 
> The time that is wasted in pedantic discussions over trifles could surely be much better employed in something more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can tell, the passages are condemning the over-use of such things, not a moderate usage. Some women need to use make-up as they would look unwell otherwise. Its not really much different to using soap to wash your face.
> 
> I really wish that people would realize there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1) and stop making such a big deal out of small matters.
> 
> The time that is wasted in pedantic discussions over trifles could surely be much better employed in something more productive.
Click to expand...


----------



## SueS

I don't do make-up - can't stand the way it feels on my face, but........when we go to Scotland this fall we're all going to paint our faces blue, stand in front of William Wallace's statue, raise our fists, and shout, "FREEDOM!!!"


----------



## Kevin

I feel like I have stumbled onto the "Amish Board"!!


----------



## MrMerlin777

Kevin said:


> I feel like I have stumbled onto the "Amish Board"!!


----------



## Coram Deo

Woman need to stop decking their faces out like the Englishers.... Oh I meant Americans..... 


Though, I read the Scottish Covenanter's were against make up also...... 



And I prefer Reformed Amish, Thank You.....




Kevin said:


> I feel like I have stumbled onto the "Amish Board"!!


----------



## Pergamum

Thunaer!

You look prety well shaved on that picture. And you might be wearing a bit of deodorant perhaps. And that hat looks fairly flamboyant.

IDOLATRY IDOLATRY IDOLATRY!



(sorry, I try to stay away from sarcasm...but its a rainy day today)


----------



## Pergamum

And waht's with ties! They're not functional at all and clealry must just be vanity.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Pergamum said:


> And waht's with ties! They're not functional at all and clealry must just be vanity.



Ties do indeed have a very important function! They work great when you come in from the rain, if you need something to wipe the rain drops off your glasses!


----------



## Augusta

I personally stopped wearing lots of make-up about 2 yrs ago. I was convicted about it personally because of my own attitudes about my looks, so I can't speak for all people. I think it is like many things and it depends upon the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 

I don't think I need to impress anyone. I am already happily married, and I have no reason to dazzle other men or women for that matter, with my looks. That is vanity. I wear a little cream and powder make-up around my eyes because I look like a raccoon if I don't, but I don't wear eyeliner, mascara, or heavy lipstick anymore. It does seem like preening vanity to me to spend so much time in the bathroom on how you look.

I am so much more free now and I actually really like not worrying about it anymore. It is also a big time and money saver.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

thunaer said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I disagree with you.... I have quoted Church Fathers, and Even Puritans on this matter.. They disagree with you. It is not some "doubtful thing"..
> 
> I just want to say that I know this is not a democracy so I am going to bail out at this point.. I totally disagree with you... I believe the Puritans also disagree with you over it being a Christian Liberty issue but I am a mere peon on here so that is really all I have to say......



Thankfully, the Puritans and Church Fathers are not in the Canon. Notice in all the quotes you provided, they were not expounding Scripture but stating their opinion. Unless the Scripture calls it sin, or it can be deduced clearly from it, we cannot call it sin. Therefore, it's a Christian liberty issue. Narrative examples are not necessarily preceptive. And your blanket statement that wearing makeup is idolatry is simply incorrect. Many women wear it for different motives, some idolatrous for sure, some to deceive or seduce others. But not all. In issues like this, you need to be guided more by the general rules of the Word, and seek to glorify God.


----------



## caoclan

Puritan Sailor said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I disagree with you.... I have quoted Church Fathers, and Even Puritans on this matter.. They disagree with you. It is not some "doubtful thing"..
> 
> I just want to say that I know this is not a democracy so I am going to bail out at this point.. I totally disagree with you... I believe the Puritans also disagree with you over it being a Christian Liberty issue but I am a mere peon on here so that is really all I have to say......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, the Puritans and Church Fathers are not in the Canon. Notice in all the quotes you provided, they were not expounding Scripture but stating their opinion. Unless the Scripture calls it sin, or it can be deduced clearly from it, we cannot call it sin. Therefore, it's a Christian liberty issue. Narrative examples are not necessarily preceptive. And your blanket statement that wearing makeup is idolatry is simply incorrect. Many women wear it for different motives, some idolatrous for sure, some to devieve or seduce others. But not all. In issues like this, you need to be guided more by the general rules of the Word, and seek to glorify God.
Click to expand...


Right, I agree. Correct motives are key. Please don't put Christians under bondage.


----------



## caoclan

thunaer said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I disagree with you.... I have quoted Church Fathers, and Even Puritans on this matter.. They disagree with you. It is not some "doubtful thing"..
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I just want to say that I know this is not a democracy so I am going to bail out at this point.. I totally disagree with you... I believe the Puritans also disagree with you over it being a Christian Liberty issue but I am a mere peon on here so that is really all I have to say......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a topic that may induce personal conviction against the use of make-up and cosmetics, but let's not get out of hand with it. I would daresay there are more brethren on the PB that would have no problem with the use of such products, and to infer that they are vain or idolatrous is stepping over the line and will not be tolerated. This is an area of Christian liberty and will be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can tell, the passages are condemning the over-use of such things, not a moderate usage. Some women need to use make-up as they would look unwell otherwise. Its not really much different to using soap to wash your face.
> 
> I really wish that people would realize there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1) and stop making such a big deal out of small matters.
> 
> The time that is wasted in pedantic discussions over trifles could surely be much better employed in something more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Brother, 
I also think this is no place for a comment like this (the "peon" part).


----------



## Gryphonette

I don't wear make-up, either, largely because I'm too lazy to spend the time necessary to properly remove it at night when I'm tired, plus I tend to rub my eyes, which doesn't work well with eye make-up. ;^)

One definite difference between the use of cosmetics during the early church era and now is that respectable women simply didn't use them back then, from what I understand. Until not very long ago, using cosmetics _was_ intended to draw attention to oneself.

The odd thing about these days, however, is that if one is a woman working in an office or somewhere, ordinary use of cosmetics (In other words,, not getting funky or Tammy Faye Bakker-ish) allows one to blend in with everyone else. 

Naturally if a woman is sporting two-inch-long false eyelashes, sparkly emerald eye shadow, and purple lipstick, all bets are off, and "LOOK AT ME!" is certainly the impetus for making such a display of herself.

But moderate, understated make-up will do no such thing, and in fact will help its wearer _not _stand out in a crowd. A female employee is more likely to be noticed because of not wearing cosmetics than she is for wearing a minimal amount. 

It reminds me of those women - and I really, really apologize if I'm about to inadvertently tread on toes - who somehow are convinced they're displaying modesty by dressing in a manner more suited to a farmer's wife in the late 19th century. Occasionally I've seen someone dressed like that here in Fort Worth, and let me tell you, she couldn't be more conspicuous at the grocery store if she'd been walking on _stilts_.

Dressing so as to attract attention is _not_ modest, even if it means every square inch of skin is covered in the dead heat of summer.

If we Christian women are to be noted primarily for our quiet, gentle demeanor instead of our dress or make-up, then the judicious use of cosmetics can actually aid in this, if a total lack of them would attract attention.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> And waht's with ties! They're not functional at all and clealry must just be vanity.



I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I saw somewhere that ties originally were designed to keep food from getting on the rest of your clothes. If true, how ironic than that we often see men throwing their expensive ties over their shoulder when about to dig into some barbecue or some other messy meal!


----------



## Pergamum

Augusta said:


> I personally stopped wearing lots of make-up about 2 yrs ago. I was convicted about it personally because of my own attitudes about my looks, so I can't speak for all people. I think it is like many things and it depends upon the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
> 
> I don't think I need to impress anyone. I am already happily married, and I have no reason to dazzle other men or women for that matter, with my looks. That is vanity. I wear a little cream and powder make-up around my eyes because I look like a raccoon if I don't, but I don't wear eyeliner, mascara, or heavy lipstick anymore. It does seem like preening vanity to me to spend so much time in the bathroom on how you look.
> 
> I am so much more free now and I actually really like not worrying about it anymore. It is also a big time and money saver.





So, let me get this straight. You wear just enough make-up not to have hmm..."beauty deficiencies" ("racoon eyes") but not enough to impress anyone? 

This seems terribly inconsistent. 

What about impressing your husband? It sounds like you are saying, "Okay, so I am married and have no need to impress anyone anymore...why not let myself go..."



I see nothing but personal preferences in most of these arguments for and against. 

I am glad when my wife tries to look nice. There is no Biblical virtue in dumpyness.


----------



## Pergamum

Gryphonette said:


> I don't wear make-up, either, largely because I'm too lazy to spend the time necessary to properly remove it at night when I'm tired, plus I tend to rub my eyes, which doesn't work well with eye make-up. ;^)
> 
> One definite difference between the use of cosmetics during the early church era and now is that respectable women simply didn't use them back then, from what I understand. Until not very long ago, using cosmetics _was_ intended to draw attention to oneself.
> 
> The odd thing about these days, however, is that if one is a woman working in an office or somewhere, ordinary use of cosmetics (In other words,, not getting funky or Tammy Faye Bakker-ish) allows one to blend in with everyone else.
> 
> Naturally if a woman is sporting two-inch-long false eyelashes, sparkly emerald eye shadow, and purple lipstick, all bets are off, and "LOOK AT ME!" is certainly the impetus for making such a display of herself.
> 
> But moderate, understated make-up will do no such thing, and in fact will help its wearer _not _stand out in a crowd. A female employee is more likely to be noticed because of not wearing cosmetics than she is for wearing a minimal amount.
> 
> It reminds me of those women - and I really, really apologize if I'm about to inadvertently tread on toes - who somehow are convinced they're displaying modesty by dressing in a manner more suited to a farmer's wife in the late 19th century. Occasionally I've seen someone dressed like that here in Fort Worth, and let me tell you, she couldn't be more conspicuous at the grocery store if she'd been walking on _stilts_.
> 
> Dressing so as to attract attention is _not_ modest, even if it means every square inch of skin is covered in the dead heat of summer.
> 
> If we Christian women are to be noted primarily for our quiet, gentle demeanor instead of our dress or make-up, then the judicious use of cosmetics can actually aid in this, if a total lack of them would attract attention.




Ha, down with Amish-like women who crave for the attention of the world by being obtuse and overly different..."Look at how modest I am....looky, looky, looky..." 

Although a good bonnet IS quite attractive!


Being separate from the world means motives, and actions rather than dress codes and outlandish costumes.


----------



## kvanlaan

I think motives _are_ key, but as far as I am concerned, we _don't_ want to blend in with the world.

For my daughters to 'blend in' with a crowd of their peers in the States, they will, in some places, have to dress like very young prostitutes. I'm not talking among deviants but 'in a crowd' at WalMart. While there need not be an adherance to "Amish-wear", let's not throw out these ideas of modesty altogether. If I am going to a public barbeque (let's say at a Rotary Club fundraiser at the local park) with my attractive wife, do I want her dressed like the others there (tight-ish jeans/capri pants and a cropped top), or in a way that says "I am not on display for your (that is, the men around her) viewing enjoyment"?

Don't you think that in many ways our views on what is "strange" and "stand out" have been skewed by society and secular culture creeping into our lives? I remember a sermon in which it was said that much of what some Christian girls now wear to the beach would have gotten them arrested just 100 years ago under secular laws of public decency. I would say that Biblical ideals were, at the time, more a part of the social moral code (though not THE standard). Now they most certainly are not. So did our standards change, or did the world's? Ours _should_ have stayed much the same, while the world's would naturally have moved on with popular culture. I'm not saying that any particular time period has THE approved biblical fashion down pat, but let's not get carried away with attempts at such, having a great big "Christian Liberty" sticker slapped on the topic and thus end all discussion of what is appropriate or modest. That is an equal or greater danger, as the bounds of 'liberty' have a tendancy to creep ever further.



> It reminds me of those women - and I really, really apologize if I'm about to inadvertently tread on toes - who somehow are convinced they're displaying modesty by dressing in a manner more suited to a farmer's wife in the late 19th century. Occasionally I've seen someone dressed like that here in Fort Worth, and let me tell you, she couldn't be more conspicuous at the grocery store if she'd been walking on stilts.
> 
> Dressing so as to attract attention is not modest, even if it means every square inch of skin is covered in the dead heat of summer.



But the first paragraph does not necessarily equal the second. There are plenty who see this mode of dress as a scriptural calling and not "look how modest *I* can be!" Quite often the ever-important _motive_ will lead to someone dressing like an Amish housewife. Yes, there are times when this degenerates into a holier-than-thou attitude, but more often than not it is instead the more 'culturally relevant' ones who come out with "so-and-so is such a _legalist_ to be dressing like that!" (And please understand that that is not what I am saying anyone in this discussion is doing, but I've seen it more often than not over here where we live.)


----------



## Augusta

Pergamum said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally stopped wearing lots of make-up about 2 yrs ago. I was convicted about it personally because of my own attitudes about my looks, so I can't speak for all people. I think it is like many things and it depends upon the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
> 
> I don't think I need to impress anyone. I am already happily married, and I have no reason to dazzle other men or women for that matter, with my looks. That is vanity. I wear a little cream and powder make-up around my eyes because I look like a raccoon if I don't, but I don't wear eyeliner, mascara, or heavy lipstick anymore. It does seem like preening vanity to me to spend so much time in the bathroom on how you look.
> 
> I am so much more free now and I actually really like not worrying about it anymore. It is also a big time and money saver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me get this straight. You wear just enough make-up not to have hmm..."beauty deficiencies" ("racoon eyes") but not enough to impress anyone?
> 
> This seems terribly inconsistent.
> 
> What about impressing your husband? It sounds like you are saying, "Okay, so I am married and have no need to impress anyone anymore...why not let myself go..."
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing but personal preferences in most of these arguments for and against.
> 
> I am glad when my wife tries to look nice. There is no Biblical virtue in dumpyness.
Click to expand...

 
Pergy,

I don't look like a monster without make-up.  I just don't have eyeliner and all of that other stuff on. I do have by genetics dark circles around my eyes. I just try to lessen that a little so that I just look natural and not scary. 

Maybe you missed it but I also said that this was a stumbling block for me and that is the main reason for it. Some women like the attention and the second looks too much and then it becomes an issue in their heart.

Funny thing is, that since I have been doing this my husband is even more amorous towards me and I almost have to hide lately.  Go figure. So my husband is in no way displeased with me not wearing make-up. He is also more concerned with my heart and soul before God and not how I look on his arm.


----------



## Pergamum

Traci:

I am sure you are not a monster and I am sorry if I sounded as if I thought you did. I have been running among a few circles too often that try to be stricter than need be and so maybe I am being reactionary (I do that sometimes).

I was lamely trying to get across that this is largely a personal issue and not a hard and fast rule driven issue. Lame might be the key word.People draw the line in very different places.


Ha ha...also maybe stop hiding! (I know all my wife's hiding places already!)



P.S. Remember, I am Pergy. I don't know that other fella anymore.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Pergamum said:


> And waht's with ties! They're not functional at all and clealry must just be vanity.


Nonsense they were created so women can choke you when angry.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Kevin said:


> I feel like I have stumbled onto the "Amish Board"!!



 That thought has crossed my mind as well; while we should be sensitive to believers who have scruples with this sort of thing, the sheer emphasis that is laid on such matters is surely unbalanced.


----------



## SueS

Pilgrim said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> And waht's with ties! They're not functional at all and clealry must just be vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I saw somewhere that ties originally were designed to keep food from getting on the rest of your clothes. If true, how ironic than that we often see men throwing their expensive ties over their shoulder when about to dig into some barbecue or some other messy meal!
Click to expand...




Hey! Ties are expensive, not to mention dry cleaning bills when they get food spots - dh recently got something on his beloved gold tie which dry cleaning didn't remove - I tried "Shouting" out the spot and then had to iron the tie which ended up ruining it. Thankfully, I was able to find another gold one at Penney's.

BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!


----------



## Pergamum

HA!!!! I don't have a SINGLE tie! 


I hate'em with a passion!


----------



## Kevin

Gryphonette said:


> I don't wear make-up, either, largely because I'm too lazy to spend the time necessary to properly remove it at night when I'm tired, plus I tend to rub my eyes, which doesn't work well with eye make-up. ;^)
> 
> One definite difference between the use of cosmetics during the early church era and now is that respectable women simply didn't use them back then, from what I understand. Until not very long ago, using cosmetics _was_ intended to draw attention to oneself.
> 
> The odd thing about these days, however, is that if one is a woman working in an office or somewhere, ordinary use of cosmetics (In other words,, not getting funky or Tammy Faye Bakker-ish) allows one to blend in with everyone else.
> 
> Naturally if a woman is sporting two-inch-long false eyelashes, sparkly emerald eye shadow, and purple lipstick, all bets are off, and "LOOK AT ME!" is certainly the impetus for making such a display of herself.
> 
> But moderate, understated make-up will do no such thing, and in fact will help its wearer _not _stand out in a crowd. A female employee is more likely to be noticed because of not wearing cosmetics than she is for wearing a minimal amount.
> 
> It reminds me of those women - and I really, really apologize if I'm about to inadvertently tread on toes - who somehow are convinced they're displaying modesty by dressing in a manner more suited to a farmer's wife in the late 19th century. Occasionally I've seen someone dressed like that here in Fort Worth, and let me tell you, she couldn't be more conspicuous at the grocery store if she'd been walking on _stilts_.
> 
> Dressing so as to attract attention is _not_ modest, even if it means every square inch of skin is covered in the dead heat of summer.
> 
> If we Christian women are to be noted primarily for our quiet, gentle demeanor instead of our dress or make-up, then the judicious use of cosmetics can actually aid in this, if a total lack of them would attract attention.




Thank you, sister!! I have heard my wife give almost exactly the same advice to young women many times.

If the point is to avoid drawing attention to yourself & your apearence, then why are you wearing an anacronistic costume, a 19th cent. hairstyle, and a unibrow? That is the one way to make sure that everyone does notice you.

Can you say "paradox" boys & girls?


----------



## BobVigneault

Michael, you've taken a stand against make-up and now you are proof-texting to bolster your stand. Pergamum is right, your hat is totally flamboyant and so is my hair except that it's 4 above zero here in Wisconsin and I'll keep the hair a bit longer.


----------



## Pergamum

Ha, now Bob is trying to find reasons for his flamboyant hairdo besides mere aesthetics! Does one need a reason to just be COOL!


----------



## Gryphonette

You're absolutely right, and I ought to have qualified my statement correspondingly. It is certainly true there are places and groups of people wherein no Christian - male or female - _should_ blend in.

If going topless becomes standard, then we Christian women are simply going to have to stick out like a sore thumb, that's all.

But so long as the prevailing fashion (such as in an ordinary business establishment) is _not_ inherently immodest, then we do better just going with the flow, though perhaps a bit more muted.

Good point of yours, and one I neglected to include. Thanks!


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm just trying to head off a return salvo. I mean, I picked on the brother's hat. I probably should get a punch in the nose for that.

You're out there getting macked on by worms and shot at by cannibals. I'm just a big coward hiding behind my computer.




Pergamum said:


> Ha, now Bob is trying to find reasons for his flamboyant hairdo besides mere aesthetics! Does one need a reason to just be COOL!


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, I'm the 19th century farmers wife...but around here, that looks pretty liberal  Seriously, I've tried hard to balance a little modernity with my modesty; something that is VERY difficult to do without having a ton of money to spend...so I've collected a blouse and skirt here and there. But I still do have my jumpers, billowy blouses, and yes, I even own a few capedresses (gasp! sorry, guys, for $3 at a yardsale and the most comfortable maternity dresses I've ever owned...I try not to wear them at church as they cause shock to some).

Back to Topic: Michael, I have to fully disagree with you. I don't wear makeup most of the time, but I do wear it for church and other special occasions...and not for reasons of vanity and pride. There are reasons some women wear makeup besides a sinful vanity. I'm against the Tammy Faye type make up I've seen. There is however, a manner of wearing makeup that doesn't produce what looks artificial.

In cases I've known, I've seen specialised makeup used on burn victims that make them look "normal". They don't look "made up" even though they are. The intent isn't vanity, but rather to avoid the fallout from the world's vanity around them (aka, it can affect careers, etc). My mother was a burn victim from the age of 8yrs...you have no idea how severe scars affect a person's life and the reactions of those around them.

In my case, I went for years without makeup until finally my husband and I both got tired of being asked about my health. In fact, it was another lady that was dressed with extreme modesty and covering that recommended to my husband that I start using makeup again to cover my conditions. Nothing like being a mother and constantly reminded how "sick" you look, "you look pale", "is anything wrong", "you look worn out from all those children", etc when I'm actually feeling GREAT! I deal with anemia, people! And then add that I have a persistent skin condition from childhood that is now spreading to my face. Vanity? Only in that I don't want people to think that I'm ill when I'm not. Only in that I don't want my skin flaking onto the people that I'm sitting next to and having a conversation with.


I would also like to point out that there are people that do the same as you just did with Scripture in pulling out negative passages that include makeup for earrings and other jewelry as well. Funny thing is, I've been banned from a board simply because I and several others pointed out that there are many passages that speak of earrings and jewelry in a positive light also. Where they say God disapproves of earrings, Scripture says that Christ himself will place earrings upon His Bride. Examples of this are also shown throughout the old testament in the lives of real people. And if we were to be honest with ourselves and carry the previous line of thinking onward, then we should all be naked, as the same negative passages state that God hates our garments. Oh, that would go against modesty! Maybe we should be looking at the "WHY" or the reason. Is it the garments themselves...or the intent behind? The NT had similar issues...not that there were those that were immodest, but rather they felt that their show of wealth made them above others in the church. It was the idea of placing ourselves where God has not placed us.

Context, brother


----------



## ChristopherPaul

My wife has always told me that the purpose for wearing makeup is to make it look like you are not wearing makeup. This does not appear to be the same purpose as face painting described in the passages in the opening post.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Pergamum said:


> HA!!!! I don't have a SINGLE tie!
> 
> 
> I hate'em with a passion!



My husband doesn't own a suit and I finally gave away his ties. His mother bought him another tie and it's sitting in a drawer.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Pergamum said:


> Ha, down with Amish-like women who crave for the attention of the world by being obtuse and overly different..."Look at how modest I am....looky, looky, looky..."
> 
> Although a good bonnet IS quite attractive!
> 
> 
> Being separate from the world means motives, and actions rather than dress codes and outlandish costumes.



I have to say that this statement shows severe ignorance of the hearts of others.  I agree with the last line...but the assumption of the previous lines is ungracious. I know many of these women and have been, to some still am, one of these women. They aren't looking for attention. They are looking to obey God a manner foreign to many nowadays and to please their husbands. Please note also that modern (not stand outtish) modest clothing is sometimes difficult to find and mostly expensive (unlike immodest clothing that is sold for $5 up at the local WM). Some of the women rely on thrift stores and homesewing that may make them look more "out of place" to you. But they look in the mirror and see something beautiful for their husbands and a person that is attempting to be the feminine that God created her to be.


----------



## JBaldwin

LadyFlynt said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> HA!!!! I don't have a SINGLE tie!
> 
> 
> I hate'em with a passion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My husband doesn't own a suit and I finally gave away his ties. His mother bought him another tie and it's sitting in a drawer.
Click to expand...


My husband doesn't wear ties either. He had to be a pall bearer in a funeral this week, and we went into a frantic search to find one of this old ties that didn't look like it came from the 1960s.


----------



## Herald

I hate ties. I hate suits. I have both. Using logic....

I hate ties
I hate suits
I have both
I hate myself



Seriously, I hate them although there are times I am required to wear them.


----------



## SueS

I totally agree with both Gryphonette and Ladyflint concerning this - there is a balance between such extreme "separation" that causes those around us to gape and blending in so well that we are a part of the problem. 

My former church has been taken over by a man who comes from the most legalistic church in our area - so legalistic that it is borderline cultic. The women there wear mostly 80's style long dresses and any pants that are worn do not have front zippers because they "pertaineth to a man". They also wear doilies. I have nothing against head coverings when they are worn because of personal conviction, but this is dictated (along with many other things) from the pulpit. The women from this particular church are commonly referred to as "doily heads". Some of them wear models that hang down to their waists - the example of the pharisees with their fringes immediately comes to mind. My 22yo daughter who is still trapped in our former church recently made the comment that these women stick out like sore thumbs and that their witness is damaged because people tend to give them wide berths in public and are awkward around them. Doilies have not yet been mandated by the man in charge of our former church but I know Sarah will have no part in it. She freaked out a few weeks ago when her 2yo dd playfully put a furniture doily on her head. 

The questions of makeup, headcoverings, and extreme modesty come down in the end to what is in the heart. If one is convicted in the heart about these things then the result is a lovely woman who radiates the love of Christ. If it comes from legalistic teaching then that too, will be obvious. It is not too difficult to discern works of the flesh.

A while back Ken Klein wrote this in one of his posts:

"I think that if people are educated about the object of their worship, their posture and dress will work themselves out. But, I don't think it works the other way around. You can't get people to focus more on the object of their worship by making them focus more on what they are or are not doing with their bodies or what clothes they are wearing."

Blessings!


----------



## BobVigneault

I have a fairly large collection of jabots and I wear a different one everyday. Here is one of my church ensembles.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great post Sue. It's ironic that the _principle_ against admonitions in the OT & NT is to women to not draw attention to themselves but that some folks become so odd in their attempts to outdo one another with modesty that they end up doing the very thing. Whenever I see the Amish, my inclination is to gawk because their dress is so ostentantious in their attempt to be modest.

Prudence allows for modesty in a way that simplistic rules can never capture.


----------



## LadyFlynt

On the Amish...I think there needs to be some understanding of their practice before we keep tossing them into the mix. Most of them dress as they do, simply because of cultural reasons nowadays. They are a subculture. For many, yes, they see themselves as better than others...but if you really understood the complexities, and even inconsitencies, of them you would understand that culture takes a stomping root over religious beliefs of modesty. There are even women that have left their Amish churches and still dress Amish...or left their mennonite church but still wear that particular church's kapp because of culture/family reasons. They don't want to be "cut off" of their family...something they have a stronger sense of than many of us.


Sue, I'm sorry that you have had such a negative perception of the headcovering practice. I hope that it is simply due to the manner it's been approached and not the practice itself. There are many of us here that headcover or have wives that headcover. But I believe the difference is in understanding the reason behind it vs "because it's on the to-do list". Those of us that cover all the time (I know myself and at least one other member here) yes, we take the risk of looking a bit odd. There is a balance in all things, but when it comes between a scriptural principle and man...well, Scripture rules out everytime. I will say also that there is a difference in carrying out the principle of covering in various applications (ie., doily, hanging veil, tiechel, snood, hat, etc) vs having your church prescribe a covering. Please understand that there is a balance in this area as well and to not toss the babe out with the bathwater


----------



## LadyFlynt

BobVigneault said:


> I have a fairly large collection of jabots and I wear a different one everyday. Here is one of my church ensembles.


Okay, maybe it's just me, but I think that is cool looking  I'm a historian at heart and have family friends that are historical interpreters.


----------



## BobVigneault

It's cool looking but my understanding of all those hair length verses, etc., is that a man should look like a man and a woman should look like a woman.

'Manly' and 'frilly' are mutually exclusive terms.


----------



## LadyFlynt

LOL! Well, it depends...is he wearing ruffles on his sleeves also, with a hankie tucked within for his snuff box


----------



## Herald

And Bob's shock of white hair certainly isn't frilly. It's mane-ly.


----------



## JBaldwin

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I hate ties. I hate suits. I have both. Using logic....
> 
> I hate ties
> I hate suits
> I have both
> I hate myself
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I hate them although there are times I am required to wear them.



Poor Bill, you seem to be a bit tied up!


----------



## Herald

JBaldwin said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate ties. I hate suits. I have both. Using logic....
> 
> I hate ties
> I hate suits
> I have both
> I hate myself
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I hate them although there are times I am required to wear them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Bill, you seem to be a bit tied up!
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LadyFlynt said:


> On the Amish...I think there needs to be some understanding of their practice before we keep tossing them into the mix. Most of them dress as they do, simply because of cultural reasons nowadays. They are a subculture. For many, yes, they see themselves as better than others...but if you really understood the complexities, and even inconsitencies, of them you would understand that culture takes a stomping root over religious beliefs of modesty. There are even women that have left their Amish churches and still dress Amish...or left their mennonite church but still wear that particular church's kapp because of culture/family reasons. They don't want to be "cut off" of their family...something they have a stronger sense of than many of us.



My point was not that they are deliberately being ostentatious but, in their queer modesty, they draw a lot of attention to themselves and undermine their desire to be modest. There are ways to dress modestly that people won't take any notice of and that's sort of my point.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The problem is, many of them have no desire to be modest. You should see how some of the teen girls sit outside of WM with their legs spread and arms flung about eachother. That is the point: for many of them, their dress is simply a habit of culture, not a sense of modesty, thus they make for a poor example  Oh, and you hit on exactly what they did INTEND for you to notice...to look different, to NOT look like anyone else in the world...that is what is important to them. There are several inconsistencies of theirs that point out immodesty, but to them that does not matter, what matters is they keep culturally separate. 

And you are right, there are ways to dress modestly that people won't take any notice. But much of that depends on where you live and what your resources are


----------



## JBaldwin

LadyFlynt said:


> The problem is, many of them have no desire to be modest. You should see how some of the teen girls sit outside of WM with their legs spread and arms flung about eachother. That is the point: for many of them, their dress is simply a habit of culture, not a sense of modesty, thus they make for a poor example
> 
> And you are right, there are ways to dress modestly that people won't take any notice. But much of that depends on where you live and what your resources are



This reminds me of a visit I made to the campus of a Christian university where they had a strict dress code which excluded women from wearing slacks. I was shocked when I noticed the wife of the president who was shopping in the bookstore. She had on an outfit that completely covered everything but her hands and lower legs, but it was so tight and revealing that it embarassed me. Right then, I realized that it's not just about the clothes, it's how you wear them.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JBaldwin said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, many of them have no desire to be modest. You should see how some of the teen girls sit outside of WM with their legs spread and arms flung about eachother. That is the point: for many of them, their dress is simply a habit of culture, not a sense of modesty, thus they make for a poor example
> 
> And you are right, there are ways to dress modestly that people won't take any notice. But much of that depends on where you live and what your resources are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a visit I made to the campus of a Christian university where they had a strict dress code which excluded women from wearing slacks. I was shocked when I noticed the wife of the president who was shopping in the bookstore. She had on an outfit that completely covered everything but her hands and lower legs, but it was so tight and revealing that it embarassed me. Right then, I realized that it's not just about the clothes, it's how you wear them.
Click to expand...


I once heard of a man who was obsessed with his wife and daughters not wearing trousers, however, the same individual allowed them to wear mini-skirts.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

SueS said:


> BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!



I wore a tie everyday to work for six years. You get used to it. That was when I worked in Princeton and Manhattan. Now that I work in the south I only wear a tie to church (or to the occasional presentation or dinner party).

In fact, after several months of working in my new office in North Carolina I was actually approached by my boss about the way I dress. I was still wearing my New York city attire (minus the jacket and tie) and yet that was still over doing it for down here! He advised me to get some khaki's.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Hey, Khakis are top of the line for rednecks! The wife knows she's being taken out to a fancy restaurant (aka Olive Garden) if the hubby showers and puts on khakis!  (and in my case, if he just freshly shaved his head)


----------



## ChristopherPaul

LadyFlynt said:


> Hey, Khakis are top of the line for rednecks! The wife knows she's being taken out to a fancy restaurant (aka Olive Garden) if the hubby showers and puts on khakis!  (and in my case, if he just freshly shaved his head)




Haha, apparently! 

Although I will put my foot down on some things - I refuse to give in to the pressure to wear flannel


----------



## LadyFlynt

Well, when you live in the north and work in a cabinet shop that is heated with a woodstove...flannel is a necessity, as is a beard. Now why a man wants a bald head in the winter is beyond me (okay, correction, my husband allows for a quarter inch in the winter).


----------



## Augusta

SueS said:


> A while back Ken Klein wrote this in one of his posts:
> 
> "I think that if people are educated about the object of their worship, their posture and dress will work themselves out. But, I don't think it works the other way around. You can't get people to focus more on the object of their worship by making them focus more on what they are or are not doing with their bodies or what clothes they are wearing."
> 
> Blessings!



This is the the key In my humble opinion to all of these types of conversations we have here. I can honestly say that everything I do or don't do is motivated by learning more each day about the God I worship, and being in awe of the lovingkindness, mercy, and longsuffering that He has shown me. 

I think I am so sensitive to it because I was raised in a church that took God very lightly and I had no idea what he was really like. Sue I read your profile and it closely resembles mine. It is an incredible journey getting to truly know the only true and living God.


----------



## Pilgrim

LadyFlynt said:


> Well, when you live in the north and work in a cabinet shop that is heated with a woodstove...flannel is a necessity, as is a beard. Now why a man wants a bald head in the winter is beyond me (okay, correction, my husband allows for a quarter inch in the winter).



 

Someone I used to work with would shave his head in the summer but would have a full head of hair in the winter.


----------



## Stephen

Bygracealone said:


> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."



 There are many barns out there that need a little paint.


----------



## Coram Deo

Men Faces can be barns too... Should they Paint their face.... 




Stephen said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of J. Vernon Mcgee: "Folks, if the barn needs paintin', then paint it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many barns out there that need a little paint.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen

Kevin said:


> I feel like I have stumbled onto the "Amish Board"!!



You have, now where is your beard, Kevin.


----------



## Stephen

All joking aside, I think we do have to be careful that we do not fall into idolatry or vainglory. I do not think we can legislate in matters like this but we must use discreation and wisdom. The Puritans would certainly have been concerned with people drawing attention to themselves or becoming self-absorbed in food, drink, or dress. Men and women should dress with modesty and not be decked out to draw attention. We must remember that the Puritans called for moderation in all things, even recreation and this is where we all fail.


----------



## Davidius

SueS said:


> BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!



What does dh mean?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Davidius said:


> SueS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does dh mean?
Click to expand...


Urban Dictionary: dh


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SueS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does dh mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Urban Dictionary: dh
Click to expand...


All I could think was Designated Hitter, and was wondering what baseball had to do with it!


----------



## Bygracealone

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SueS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - how many ties do you guys have in your closets? My dh only wears one on Sunday and for other dress-up occasions, not every day, and still has an ENORMOUS number of the things collected over the years!!! It's comprable to a woman's drawer of cosmetics any day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does dh mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Urban Dictionary: dh
Click to expand...


Thanks for that Andrew, I was out of the loop on that one as well. I guess I'm not as hip as I think I am  I don't know if you caught it or not, but the website described the users of the term in a rather derogatory manner:

On on-line discussion groups, abbreviation for "dear hubby." Less common: "dear husband," "dearest h*," "darling h*."

*Frequent users include SAHMs* [another new one for me; it means "stay at home moms"], *Christians;any group with the right combination of insecurity, self-righteousness, and poor education.*


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yep, you need up your lingo 

DH/DW/SO/DP
S/O
DD/DS
BIL/MIL/FIL/SIL
DSD/DSS
BF/BFF/GF
KWIM
In my humble opinion/MHO
NAK/AFK
LOL!


----------



## BJClark

I've tried to post to this thread many times, but the words just seem to fail me..

I don't typically wear make-up, not because of any conviction, but my daughters have commented that it makes them uncomfortable to have men stop and take notice of me; which they notice happens more often when I'm wearing make up than when I'm not. But then, they don't wear it very often for the same reason, it makes them just as uncomfortable to have men stop and notice them, they prefer to stay under the radar of gawking men.


----------



## SRoper

thunaer said:


> Men Faces can be barns too... Should they Paint their face....


No, we just grow beards.


----------



## SueS

LadyFlynt said:


> Sue, I'm sorry that you have had such a negative perception of the headcovering practice. I hope that it is simply due to the manner it's been approached and not the practice itself. There are many of us here that headcover or have wives that headcover. But I believe the difference is in understanding the reason behind it vs "because it's on the to-do list". Those of us that cover all the time (I know myself and at least one other member here) yes, we take the risk of looking a bit odd. There is a balance in all things, but when it comes between a scriptural principle and man...well, Scripture rules out everytime. I will say also that there is a difference in carrying out the principle of covering in various applications (ie., doily, hanging veil, tiechel, snood, hat, etc) vs having your church prescribe a covering. Please understand that there is a balance in this area as well and to not toss the babe out with the bathwater





No, my perception of headcoverings is not at all negative although I haven't been convicted in that area. As you just mentioned, it's in the manner in which it is approached. This particular church is very works oriented - in fact, when the present leader of our former church was installed, his pastor, the pastor of the legalistic church, told our congregation that salvation was linked to keeping the law. It was like a bolt of lightning in my spirit - my dh didn't notice what was said and conveniently, the recording equipment wasn't working so I can't proved it was said. The term I used, "doily heads" signifies much more than the mere fact that their women cover - it's a whole mindset and lifestyle - they're almost like Stepford wives. The world sees the exterior, but who knows what is going on underneath. I daily thank the Lord for delivering my husband and myself from what my former church is becoming.

Oh, btw - I love cape dresses! There are a lot of Mennonite women who attend the yearly CHEO convention and I always thought they were beautiful in their pastel print dresses.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I totally understand the whole Stepford Wives thing. I've seen that kind of behaviour modification in more than one church.


----------



## a mere housewife

I wear makeup. I do so as others have cited because I am made self conscious by being told I don't look physically very well, because I am more self conscious sticking out than blending in, and because I find nothing immoral in trying to look nice. Scripture clearly teaches that physical beauty is worth nothing divorced from spiritual beauty, but it does not teach that physical beauty is therefore nothing at all or that it is evil. It isn't the jewelry that is heinous in the proverb but that it's adorning a pig. Beauty is not some negligible afterthought that somehow made it into an already perfect world, and I don't see the desire to reflect the beauty and glory of God along with the rest of creation as the desire of Jezebel. I used to feel guilty for curling my hair under so it didn't stick out -- but then realized that Scripture cites a woman's hair as her 'glory'. It doesn't there cite her inward, but her physical beauty as something that she and her husband at most times legitimately glory in. There is also that bit about the virtuous women wearing rather unnecessarily becoming colors which took a good amount of unnecessary time and money to weave, dye, etc. I no longer feel guilty for spending a few minutes to put on makeup or curl my hair. Indeed the most godly women I have known (in our work in Mexico City), poor in many other ways and rich in good works as they were, always took some care to try to look pretty (and they succeeded). I find nowhere in the commandments that makeup or prettiness is immoral and I don't understand the logic that would have me value in God's goodness the natural beauty of the earth, the pleasing beauty of a well decorated room, the sensible beauty of a piece of china or poetry, and suddenly find physical beauty in women to be the special territory of Jezebel.

I also wanted to comment that I submit to my own husband in this. It is not only an area that the moral law doesn't so definitively as the post was presented, address; but an area in which any women who is genuinely trying to adorn herself inwardly must submit to her own husband --- not any other man, church father or puritan or whomever. All of the women here are doing just that, whether they wear makeup or not, and I am honored to be in any company with them. Perhaps as I grow in grace I will stop wearing makeup, I don't know: I don't think my husband terribly deficient in grace (and I suppose if there is one way to make me want to strangle someone with a tie it would be a suggestion that I ought to think he is), and he hasn't asked me to stop wearing it for his conscience' sake so I'm not going to preoccupy myself about it. There are more significant adornments for me to preoccupy myself about. For now though I am deficient in many things and wear makeup toboot I can say by God's grace I'm not Jezebel. She tried to dominate her husband. I try (and often fail, but am still trying very hard) to submit to mine. I know that is true of the other women here, and of all the wives of men here who are striving to be pleasing to their own husbands in all these things.

[edit: that about strangling people with a tie was humorous -- I didn't mean any personal offense to anyone: I don't have icons turned on so can't see who's wearing ties and who isn't. 
Also, re: the difference between women and men in adorning themselves: I think Scripture assumes that difference in pointing out that nature assumes it: men don't have long or elaborately arranged or whatever that word means, hair: women do, this physical adornment is their glory, and they are the glory of men.]


----------



## BJClark

a mere housewife;

My husband doesn't care one way or another either, but if he had a preference then I'd submit to that, not another man's opinion or even my daughters concerns of my being gawked at, but in that he doesn't, I wear it on occassion, but most of the time I don't just don't care to put it on. 

I know some women that never leave home without make up on, and it doesn't matter where they are going, be it to the mall, the beach, lake or pool they put their make up on, their husbands don't care one way or the other either, but it's just their personal preference to wear make up all the time.


----------



## Nse007

I think the mocking comments that some have made toward Michael are unwarranted. You may dissagree with him, but you can at least hear him out...it concerns me that people so quickly dismiss things. Aren't we aware of that same thing when our "evangelical" brothers patronize us? Let's try to have a respectful thoughtful discussion about things.


----------



## a mere housewife

Bobbi, I wear makeup pretty much every time I leave the house as well: I've been accosted several times by middle aged men when I was not wearing it in stores. I didn't understand what was going on but recognized that when I wear make up men are polite, but don't bother me. I heard a show on the radio about how some men will hang out in stores and approach women who look like victims, whether they are just looking for a relationship or something more sinister -- a woman who looks 'together' and more stylish doesn't look so much like a victim. I didn't like that kind of attention and in this my husband does have a preference: he doesn't like other men following/approaching me either. I haven't wanted to offer this as an 'excuse' because I don't think the desire to look nice needs to be excused. Makeup is not inherently evil and some of the women who don't leave home without it are some of the most inwardly beautiful women I've known.
I am so happy to know you and the other women here and to have your example in trying to please my husband and to please God.


----------



## turmeric

Let's remember what Paul says in Ch. 14 of the letter to the Romans and let each be convinced in his(or her) own mind, and be gracious to one another.

I think, reading the posts and the humor in them, that most of us are not trying to do what Jezebel was trying to do, but it's always good to examine one's motives.

As for "paintin' the barn", I've heard McGee give that very talk. In his opinion, the woman who accosted him asking about makeup could have used some to good effect. I don't know, I wasn't there.  I probably could use some too, but I can't see well enough to put it on. I imagine the effect would be comical.


----------

