Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Al Martin has a sermon on the need for modest dress among Christian women:
SermonAudio.com - Modesty and the Gospel
SermonAudio.com - Modesty and the Gospel
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.
He's talking about the ten things that are magnets to men's eyes..
1. Dresses or skirts w/ slits to the knee or above..
2. Dresses, skirts, jeans that hug the buttocks
3. Upper garmets that hug the breast
4. unbuttoned blouses that have one button left covering the breasts, and if you lean over your breasts are exposed.
5. Sleeveless blouses or long arm holes that men sitting behind you can look and see in your shirt or dress..
6. low rise skirts and pants that barely cover the buttocks
7. See through clothing
8. Skirts & dresses that are so short that if you move around shows your undergarmets, and everyone can see them.
9. Pants, slacks, jeans that hug the buttocks, hips and crotch..
10. Bared middrift..
Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....
The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....
Coram Deo;
Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....
The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....
While I understand that men can lust over all of these things, as a woman, it is a HUGE burden to carry and to know that no matter what I wear, I am being held accountable for being responsible for that man's lust. Where is the man's responsibility for his heart before God in this?
I know men who lust more over women who are fully covered modestly, thinking about what they can't see and what these women ARE covering, and mentally undressing her fully clothed body..but as a woman, I have no control over a man's lustful thoughts, no matter what I'm wearing.
Granted I can wear things *I* feel are not going to cause a man to lust, but that doesn't mean he's NOT going to lust anyway, if that is what's in his heart to do.
Should men and women live in totally seperate societies so that men will never have to deal with their lustful thoughts before God? That to me would be THE ONLY way to prevent men from lusting over women at all.
To add one more thought to what Bobbi and Vic have already said:
Modesty for a woman is not only in clothing, but in attitude. I have seen fully clothed women drive men to near insanity with their words and their eyes. If a woman is honest before the Lord, she will be careful not only with her dress, but with her attitude.
Jbaldwin,
Yes, it is in attitude but also outwardly in clothing... The scripture speaks of both...
Calvin speaks of modesty of the attitude in the passage Isaiah 3:16
"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:"
This does not distract from outward modesty or outward coverings. Isaiah 47:2, Song, Genesis, Timothy, etc...
To add one more thought to what Bobbi and Vic have already said:
Modesty for a woman is not only in clothing, but in attitude. I have seen fully clothed women drive men to near insanity with their words and their eyes. If a woman is honest before the Lord, she will be careful not only with her dress, but with her attitude.
Daniel,
Personally I have trouble labeling 1 Cor. 11 as a mere worship practice But more of a headship practice.... I guess it is one view if they believe it is linked to the following sections which describe worship under the Lord Supper sacrament. Difficult to say for sure since there was no chapter or verse distinction until the Geneva Bible.
I do believe it holds out a modesty clause in addition to other passages teachings woman to cover for modesty.. Passages in Genesis, Song, Isaiah 47:2, etc..
Personally I hold to headcoverings for modesty and still believe them to be for the Christian woman today.. I believe for a woman to show her hair is immodest, as hair is very lustful, even for the Western Man today.. I see nothing cultural about it.
I also do believe that the whole head constitute the woman.. So I am a proponent that believes the whole hair is to be covered.
Many of the Early Church Fathers taught that even the face of the woman was to be covered... It is plausible and I could lean that way but I am not going to be dogmatic about the face.
All in all, I believe that a wrap that covers the hair is required and would be closer to a muslim shayla or a hijab head scarf aleast according to my Hebrew and Greek study of the words.
I am also not for hats which is a protected head gear for the cold and not a sign of submission to headship.
As for my wife.... Currently she covers in worship and she understands my position.. I have been given her space to study my work and come to it on her own without "Lording It Over Her".. Husbands must dwell with their wives in Understanding. A time may come when I politely ask her to cover even if it is not her conviction for her husband but that is not today... Time and Space must be given..
Here are a few photos describing what I meant according to my Hebrew and Greek word studies....
Here is a Christian woman from England around the year 800 A.D.
Here is a Modern Day Christian woman from the Middle East, I believe from Israel.
Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.
Michael
Thankful for your useful input; even though I am not convinced of your position, I respect your view and think that you make a number of very good points.
Moreover it should be noted that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not merely referring to public worship, because in verses 17-18 Paul goes on to distinguish this from what goes on specifically when they "come together as a church". Thus if one is going to say that headcovering is a moral principle, then ladies should wear proper headcoverings (not hats) on all occasions which they are seen in public.
Thank You Brother..
I also concur with what you said regarding 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and what is said in verses 17-18. In fact I agree with your entire last paragraph...
Michael
Thankful for your useful input; even though I am not convinced of your position, I respect your view and think that you make a number of very good points.
Moreover it should be noted that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not merely referring to public worship, because in verses 17-18 Paul goes on to distinguish this from what goes on specifically when they "come together as a church". Thus if one is going to say that headcovering is a moral principle, then ladies should wear proper headcoverings (not hats) on all occasions which they are seen in public.
Does modesty ever apply to men as well? Like men wearing tight shirts that show their muscles? Or men wearing no sleeved shirts or even short sleeved shirts? Or men wearing shorts? I know some women lust when they see men's arms or legs or muscles.
Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....
I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...
Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....
I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...
Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
Wait you wear pants in the pool?