Conservatism versus hyper-conservatism?

[DennisD]

I'm sure they will, if necessary, but this is also what the OP's close button facility is for. (But what do I know?) We seem to be getting a bit off topic.

Yes, but you are getting as insane with the close thread button as you were with piercings and tattoos. Why would you want to close the thread? It just boggles the mind why you are so concerned with having folks let you know to close the thread. We are still talking about conservatism in this thread so I see no near future need to close it. Just relax your trigger finger for a bit lol

[Salyan]

farouk, on 11 August 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Happy Christian: I certainly take the point about being a good testimony and not letting carelessness about our appearance detract from that testimony. On the eccentricity aspect, I guess it's all rather subjective, but it seems that some people are at pains not to be careless about their appearance for the sake of testimony, and yet 'don't care' if they seem very eccentric. Is this just a matter of words, or is there a slight point here? (I'm not referring to anyone in particular.)

I don't know - is there a slight point?

Personally, I don't care if the world thinks I'm weird (eccentric=weird). I think they're weird! They fill themselves with substances that destroy their mind & body, believe their many-great-grandparents were monkeys, and wear, well, practically nothing. Their entire worldview is diametrically opposed to the Bible and to my own. Why should their opinion matter?

The BIble warns us that if we live like we should (not saying I do yet, just quoting), the world will hate us. Seems to me that considering us to be eccentric fits right in with that.

And, no, I don't think we should try to be weird on purpose. The Bible also teaches moderation - as long as we're obeying God's principles, there is no need to go off the deep end in trying to be as opposite from the world as possible - just for the sake of being opposite.

[HappyChristian]

I don't know - is there a slight point?

Personally, I don't care if the world thinks I'm weird (eccentric=weird). I think they're weird! They fill themselves with substances that destroy their mind & body, believe their many-great-grandparents were monkeys, and wear, well, practically nothing. Their entire worldview is diametrically opposed to the Bible and to my own. Why should their opinion matter?

The BIble warns us that if we live like we should (not saying I do yet, just quoting), the world will hate us. Seems to me that considering us to be eccentric fits right in with that.

And, no, I don't think we should try to be weird on purpose. The Bible also teaches moderation - as long as we're obeying God's principles, there is no need to go off the deep end in trying to be as opposite from the world as possible - just for the sake of being opposite.

Absolutely!!!

[farouk]

Yes, but you are getting as insane with the close thread button as you were with piercings and tattoos. Why would you want to close the thread? It just boggles the mind why you are so concerned with having folks let you know to close the thread. We are still talking about conservatism in this thread so I see no near future need to close it. Just relax your trigger finger for a bit lol

Oh okay...

[rancher824]

I would not consider myself properly dressed if I went to church in jeans. I would only wear jeans when I am working in the garden. At church I usually wear a suit as do most of our older men, the youngsters mostly dress more casually.

Might I ask a question? Why would you not be properly dressed in jeans instead of a suit? Is there a Biblical reason (spelled out in a verse) or principal involved? Is it something to rebuke someone else for not doing? I know of a church that anyone in a leadership role is required to wear a suit to church. But is there any Bible verse to back this up? I see it easier to prove robes than suits.

[John81]

Throughout Christian history those who truly commit their lives to following Christ are called "radical", "extreme", "fanatical" or even "hyper-this and that". The biblical fact is, that's exactly what God calls us to be. Nowhere in the Bible are professing Christians called to be nominal, half-hearted, lukewarm, fence sitters, compromisers or any such thing.

Christ says we are to forsake all and follow Him. Total surrender, total submission of our lives and all we have to Him.

Consider all that Paul gave up for the sake of following Christ. Then look at how petty so many professing Christians can be as they whine about how really following Christ might mean they have to change jobs, or they might make less money, or they would need to give up listening to their favorite secular music, they would have to stop watching those wicked shows/movies all their friends watch, their friends wouldn't understand and would leave or turn against them, dressing modestly will make me less popular, no more summer beach vacation, etc.

Paul gave up being a top man of the Jewish religious/political elite. Gave up all his friends. Gave up all opportunities for advancement and prominence among his onw people and his own nation. Paul cast it all aside, saying it was nothing but dung in comparison to knowing and following Christ.

Meanwhile Christians today stamp their feet about wanting things their own way. They want to be consider as Christians yet they want to cling to the things of the world, whether it's worldly music, tattoos, filthy movies, drinking booze, dressing how they please, going through life according to their own plans with little, if any, regard to what God has to say about anything.

Jesus asked why so many were calling Him Lord when they were not doing as He says. Jesus went on to point out that those who truly love Him keep His commandments.

What do we see more of today, those who truly follow Christ or those who say they are His but wallow in the world and direct their own lives?

Jesus warns that one day many will stand before Him who claim to be His but Jesus will declare He never knew them and they will be cast away. This is one of the reasons we are all warned to examine our own salvation. Are we truly following Christ or are we following our own wills and the ways of the world?

[Covenanter]

Back to topic, I submit that "hyper" means going beyond Scripture, normally by over literal reading of Scripture, & thus imposing an unscriptural conclusion.

e.g. hypercalvinism - only God can save, therefore evangelism is superfluous. God will save his elect anyway.
hyperdispensationalism - we are in the dispensation of grace, whereas the Jews are under a dispensation of law - Jews will be saved by keeping the law in the millennium.
herpentecostalism - if you haven't receive the baptism of the Spirit & don't speak in tongues, you are not saved.
hyperanticovenantalism - Christians are under the covenant of grace, whereas the Jews have a covenant of law. Christians should not evangelise Jews.
hyperobedience to the powers that be - the state says "kill Jews, blacks, Muslims, Christian converts, etc" so I will obey the state as commanded by Scripture.
hyperconservatism - doing everything as we have always done, & resisting every innovation - especially with regard to wearing trousers (aka pants) but also new hymns, new Bible translations, even only using wood & cat-gut tennis racquets ....

[John81]

Back to topic, I submit that "hyper" means going beyond Scripture, normally by over literal reading of Scripture, & thus imposing an unscriptural conclusion.

e.g. hypercalvinism - only God can save, therefore evangelism is superfluous. God will save his elect anyway.
hyperdispensationalism - we are in the dispensation of grace, whereas the Jews are under a dispensation of law - Jews will be saved by keeping the law in the millennium.
herpentecostalism - if you haven't receive the baptism of the Spirit & don't speak in tongues, you are not saved.
hyperanticovenantalism - Christians are under the covenant of grace, whereas the Jews have a covenant of law. Christians should not evangelise Jews.
hyperobedience to the powers that be - the state says "kill Jews, blacks, Muslims, Christian converts, etc" so I will obey the state as commanded by Scripture.
hyperconservatism - doing everything as we have always done, & resisting every innovation - especially with regard to wearing trousers (aka pants) but also new hymns, new Bible translations, even only using wood & cat-gut tennis racquets ....

This is the problem. The definition of "hyper" has been broadly expanded so that today those who actually hold to Bible teaching are tagged as "hyper" or "extreme", or "fanatical". I've been called such for putting Sunday morning church attendance as a weekly priority.

[rancher824]

If it's an unsaved person who believes it's eccentric my wife wears a skirt everywhere then I don't see what the issue is? If someone thought we were eccentric because we wore robes everywhere then that might be a different story. If you were trying to live to please others you'd never be able to please everyone since our opinions are like fingerprints...everyone has one.

But, if we live to please God then who cares what others think.

Okay, lets try to take this at another avenue. I have been told that there is no Bible command to wear a robe. I have been told that times change, and it is the modesty that madders. Lets try to look deeper. Let's side track to dancing. I find no direct command against dancing (please do not think I am pro dancing, because I am not). If we look for dancing in the Bible we find David danced. The psalms say to praise his name in the dance (ps 149) Ecc says there is a time to dance. But we say dancing is wrong. We mention it cost John the Baptist his head (believed to be the dance of seven veils, easily proved as immodest). We say that the scripture say to abstain from the apperance of evil, so therefore dancing is wrong. Scripture comes closer to approving of dancing than of jeans (jeans are never mentioned).
I will note you said your wife wears a skirt everywhere. Now I do not want to turn this toward the pants on women debate, but I will ask why? I have heard some say it is because the pants bring attention to a woman and makes a man look. That they are not modest. I understand the thought here, but I have heard women talk about watching the exact thing about a man walking by. I know "women don't think like men", well that may have been a hundred years ago, but today the girls are about as full of lust as the boys. I could state a few points from the bus kids, but I don't feel it would be worth the time. I would also venture to say that most Christian ladies who wear pants would say, as you do of your pants, "they cover the body and I am modest."
I have heard the reason for women wearing only skirt as being because of the Bible forbiding men to wear women's and women to wear men's clothing. But the robes were as simular as some of the "women's pants" and men's pants.There are pants on the market that I would not even consider because they are feminine.
I have also heard the reason of women wearing skirts because "it makes it where the world sees we are different." They like it that they stand out for God. They are seen as different from the world. I have already spoke to this one, as that we men do not stand out from the world.

[John81]

Okay, lets try to take this at another avenue. I have been told that there is no Bible command to wear a robe. I have been told that times change, and it is the modesty that madders. Lets try to look deeper. Let's side track to dancing. I find no direct command against dancing (please do not think I am pro dancing, because I am not). If we look for dancing in the Bible we find David danced. The psalms say to praise his name in the dance (ps 149) Ecc says there is a time to dance. But we say dancing is wrong. We mention it cost John the Baptist his head (believed to be the dance of seven veils, easily proved as immodest). We say that the scripture say to abstain from the apperance of evil, so therefore dancing is wrong. Scripture comes closer to approving of dancing than of jeans (jeans are never mentioned).
I will note you said your wife wears a skirt everywhere. Now I do not want to turn this toward the pants on women debate, but I will ask why? I have heard some say it is because the pants bring attention to a woman and makes a man look. That they are not modest. I understand the thought here, but I have heard women talk about watching the exact thing about a man walking by. I know "women don't think like men", well that may have been a hundred years ago, but today the girls are about as full of lust as the boys. I could state a few points from the bus kids, but I don't feel it would be worth the time. I would also venture to say that most Christian ladies who wear pants would say, as you do of your pants, "they cover the body and I am modest."
I have heard the reason for women wearing only skirt as being because of the Bible forbiding men to wear women's and women to wear men's clothing. But the robes were as simular as some of the "women's pants" and men's pants.There are pants on the market that I would not even consider because they are feminine.
I have also heard the reason of women wearing skirts because "it makes it where the world sees we are different." They like it that they stand out for God. They are seen as different from the world. I have already spoke to this one, as that we men do not stand out from the world.

Pants on men are immodest when they are worn tight. Wearing such is unsuitable for anything other than show. The pants men wear to work in are not tight, they provide nothing for anyone to look at, as do tight pants.

Womens pants are cut and designed to highlight their unique body style. Men's pants don't tend to fit well on women. In either case, pants tend to be either too tight and form fitting (immodest) or too loose and sloppy or slovenly looking.

Blue Jeans were first created as a men's work pant. Until the last half of the 20th century blue jeans were viewed and made as men's clothing.

Skirts are womens clothing but can also be immodest or modest depending upon their style and cut. Mini-skirts are immodest. A long skirt with a slip to near the hip is immodest. Skirts that are form fitting are immodest. A traditional, long, flowing skirt is modest.

The dancing which is wrong is the intimate dancing unmarried couples do, or married people dancing that way with those they are not married to. Dancing alone in a provocative, immodest and or sensual manner is also wrong.

Again, it's not the dancing itself that's wrong, it's the style, type and reason for dancing that can, and most often is, wrong.

With regards to robes, they were similar because that's all they knew how to make at that time and place but there were specific distinctions between the robes sown for men and those sown for women. The robes would not be misunderstood for one or the other and neither sex would accidently grab the wrong robe because they were different enough to differentiate.

[DennisD]

Might I ask a question? Why would you not be properly dressed in jeans instead of a suit? Is there a Biblical reason (spelled out in a verse) or principal involved? Is it something to rebuke someone else for not doing? I know of a church that anyone in a leadership role is required to wear a suit to church. But is there any Bible verse to back this up? I see it easier to prove robes than suits.

I think this is more of a man made standard but that doesn't mean it's a bad standard. For example, my Pastor in our old church in Germany did not require members of the church to wear skirts or long pants for women but if you wanted to teach Sunday School or Junior church to the kids he had "extra" standards that needed to be followed. When I started teaching Jr. church I had to promise I would wear pants at all times (couldn't wear shorts). This wasn't some sort of legalist thing, he felt strongly that those who had roles in the church should look the part and he didn't feel shorts were professional looking and whatnot.

Same thing with my wife, if she wanted to teach Jr. church...she would be required to wear skirts at all times (this includes during the week when you go out to the grocery store or whereever).

Personally, I wear jeans on Weds service because I'm usually just getting home from work or physical training and it's usually what I wear during the day anyway. For Sunday, I wear a suit. Not because it's commanded but because I believe it gives a good testimony and opens up conversation as well.

[DennisD]

Okay, lets try to take this at another avenue. I have been told that there is no Bible command to wear a robe. I have been told that times change, and it is the modesty that madders. Lets try to look deeper. Let's side track to dancing. I find no direct command against dancing (please do not think I am pro dancing, because I am not). If we look for dancing in the Bible we find David danced. The psalms say to praise his name in the dance (ps 149) Ecc says there is a time to dance. But we say dancing is wrong. We mention it cost John the Baptist his head (believed to be the dance of seven veils, easily proved as immodest). We say that the scripture say to abstain from the apperance of evil, so therefore dancing is wrong. Scripture comes closer to approving of dancing than of jeans (jeans are never mentioned).
I will note you said your wife wears a skirt everywhere. Now I do not want to turn this toward the pants on women debate, but I will ask why? I have heard some say it is because the pants bring attention to a woman and makes a man look. That they are not modest. I understand the thought here, but I have heard women talk about watching the exact thing about a man walking by. I know "women don't think like men", well that may have been a hundred years ago, but today the girls are about as full of lust as the boys. I could state a few points from the bus kids, but I don't feel it would be worth the time. I would also venture to say that most Christian ladies who wear pants would say, as you do of your pants, "they cover the body and I am modest."
I have heard the reason for women wearing only skirt as being because of the Bible forbiding men to wear women's and women to wear men's clothing. But the robes were as simular as some of the "women's pants" and men's pants.There are pants on the market that I would not even consider because they are feminine.
I have also heard the reason of women wearing skirts because "it makes it where the world sees we are different." They like it that they stand out for God. They are seen as different from the world. I have already spoke to this one, as that we men do not stand out from the world.

My wife decided to wear skirts because she was convicted of it. She didn't realize until afterward that men have a hard time not looking when a women wears tight pants showing more of the curvature of her body. She never thought like that and proceeded to tell me that most women don't (she was unsaved for her first 25 years and was fairly certain of this). And I think you are wrong about men not sticking out, my first weekend here at my new base the guard saw us coming back from church (thousands upon thousands come through the gates here at base everyday). The next week, he remembered me and mentioned I was coming back from church. Just because others wear suits doesn't mean we don't get noticed while wearing them. We might even wear a tie that has the 10 commandments on it or maybe some scripture or amazing grace lyrics. These are things other men don't wear, at least not on a normal basis. So, I really don't think you should emphatically say men don't get noticed even by their clothing...I would say you are completely wrong (sorry).

When she saw that local women would come up to us and know instantly we were with a church due to all the women wearing skirts that really did it in for her, she was convicted of the Holy Spirit that skirts were the correct dress for ladies.

I'm sure there are many women that believe jeans are modest, I have yet to see a pair but can understand that the womens mindset might not understand the perverted mind of a man.

I had a hard time reading your post though, not sure if you are trying to refute something I said or not but I stand by my thoughts that we come to often to the type of clothing (skirts/pants/robes/bear costume/etc) instead of the real issue. Is it modest?

We can agree there are certain areas that are pretty much non-debatable. My opinion is there are no real modest jeans for a woman. Anyone that disagrees is either a woman or a godlier man than I am. I understand the perverted mind of a man and jeans are just not modest.

If a man wears tight jeans they are not modest either, if he wears jeans where his rear-end and/or underwear is open for everyone to see...it's not modest. Lets get off the "type of clothing" and get back to where we should be...modest/immodest.

I think the same can apply to dancing. I'm not pro-dancing either but I don't see the issue if my wife and I dance together in our home. I almost don't see an issue with her and I dancing maybe at a ball every so often but it would have to be done in a tasteful way to tasteful music and modest. If I'm sitting there in public with my hand in a place it shouldn't be or we are partaking in some sort of "grinding" dance or there is heavy metal playing then that is wrong.

Does scripture say, you can dance but make sure it's with your wife/husband and you are wearing modest clothing and dancing in a conservative way to godly music? No, but I think surely we can take from scripture that if you are going to do something you best do it in a godly way. Is dancing wildly to heavy metal godly? I would venture to guess...not in the slightest. Is dancing modestly, with your spouse to godly music godly? Maybe debatable but it seems it might be ok. I don't think we can suggest all circumstances, would take discernment on our part.

Many say David was dancing with all his might as it just so excited that he was praising God's name and just jumping around to the glory of God (he also wasn't dancing with someone). I'm not so sure it's really a piece of scripture to accept dancing but to each his own.

[JerryNumbers]

I think there's a natural tendency to use our own opinions as the yardstick by which we measure the ideas and opinions of others. All of us think we are "balanced," and tend to think of people who seem to be a few "standard deviations" to the right or left of us on any given issue as "hyper-something." For example, I'm sure some people on here think of me as "a liberal" since I don't see anything wrong with women participating in sports, or wearing modest pants, and am not KJVO. However, others might view me as "a conservative" because I believe that certain art forms (styles of music, for example) demean the gospel, and I wouldn't allow my kids to get tats or pierce their tongues, and I wouldn't send them to public school.

I've found that these terms (hyper-conservative, hyper-liberal, etc.) aren't at all useful in most discussions, because none of us see ourselves as others see us. Assigning labels doesn't aid the free exchange of ideas; it hampers it.

It doesn't bother me that others apply Scripture differently than I do; on the contrary, I rejoice that people are using scripture as their guide to faith and practice. The applications of others aren't my business, although it's fun to throw ideas around in a friendly manner. The thing that bothers me sometimes is when people throw out accusations (or at least negative insinuations) simply because another person is applying scripture differently than they would. It behooves us all to remember that we are not responsible for others, but only for ourselves. We all think differently, and shouldn't be surprised when someone disagrees with us in matters of practice.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Wrong, pastors do have responsibly for those that are in their flock of which the holy Ghost has put them in that position, a responsibly that you would not share.

[JerryNumbers]

I've never heard of a hyper-conservative. I've heard of conservatives, neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives.

In any event, if one is using Scripture as the yardstick they will be viewed as extreme if they actually believe and follow the Scriptures.

Scripture is not unclear with regards to things such as attire and pertains to all cultures. Modesty is clearly taught for all. Not conforming to the way of the world is clearly taught. It doesn't matter what culture one is in, most of the body is to be covered in a modest manner when in public or the company of those not ones spouse.

Even where Scripture doesn't give a direct command or statement, Scripture provides an abundance of principles for us to apply to everything in life.

What we see today is most Christians wanting to have a Burger King Christianity, they want to have it their way. Scripture is clear on dressing modestly yet most Christians dress the same or nearly the same as the immodest world dresses.

Look at the many Christians today who call themselves Christians yet they don't follow Christ; they follow their own lusts, the ways of the world, their own will. Professing Christians flock to the R-rated movies where they hear the name of Jesus profaned continuously, where sinful sex is seen in detail and in an approving manner, where the "morals" of the world are promoted and other ungodly things are put into the hearts and minds of those viewing.

What does Jesus say? If you love me you will keep my commandments. If we want to follow Christ we are called to deny self, live for Christ, even to the point of it being Christ living in us and not ourselves. How many professing Christians even attempt this let alone actually strive for this? Most professing Christians want to have the security they feel in saying they are Christian while refusing or outright rejecting following Christ.

Jesus asked why so many call Him Lord yet don't do as He commands. Jesus warned the day will come when many will stand before Him declaring they are His yet He will tell them plainly He never knew them and cast them away.

Scripture doesn't call folks to profess to be Christian and follow the world, Scripture calls for actual disciples who follow Christ. We are warned to examine our faith to be sure of our salvation.

Your 100% right, but there be many that do not want to accept the fact that the Bible gives us all the information we need to follow Jesus closely & deny our self, that is if we are willing, few there be that are willing. Among them things they will claim is each can do as the Holy Spirit leads them & none of them are wrong. There is no way everyone can be right, yet come to a different conclusion on what it right & or wrong.

I missed this topic, I've read only a few post, at this time I can't go though all 5 pages.

[farouk]

Okay so yes I can see that if I had used another prefex than hyper-, it maybe would have been more constructive, because hyper- can mean different things to different people. (Like, a Lockheed X-15 is hypersonic.....)

Whether, skirts, pants, etc are hyper-, hypersonic, or modest, or not, etc. seems also to contain so many variables, too, that what one person is sure of, may not be certain for another.