Conservatism versus hyper-conservatism?

[Covenanter]

As a diabetic, good control is vital - the extremes of hypo- & hyper- glycaemia are dangerous.

As a Christian, right Biblical understanding & teaching is vital. "Labelling" those we disagree with, or even labelling ourselves, is the way forward to misunderstandings - & providing tools for division.

[John81]

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.

Amen. The pastor is to shepherd the flock God has entrusted to them. This includes instructing them in the right way, rebuking and reproving those who go astray, etc.

Even individual believers are to look out for their brothers/sisters in Christ. Mature believers are to help others to grow in the faith, to know right from wrong. What compassion would we have if we saw one of our family in Christ walking into danger and we did not try to help them?

[John81]

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.

No, it's as Jerry said, the Bible has the answers if one is truly interested in finding the answer and actually following Christ. The issue of modesty is not a difficult one. Most of the body should be covered and it should not be covered by form fitting clothing.

You seem to want to continually reject Scripture in favor of your own desires or your own preferences. When any of us do this, that is rebellion against God. Rather than play with the world, rather than run our own lives in our very limited wisdom, if we are to be true followers of Christ we must submit to Him, stay as far from sin and the world as we can, striving to be holy, for He is holy.

[farouk]

No, it's as Jerry said, the Bible has the answers if one is truly interested in finding the answer and actually following Christ. The issue of modesty is not a difficult one. Most of the body should be covered and it should not be covered by form fitting clothing.

You seem to want to continually reject Scripture in favor of your own desires or your own preferences. When any of us do this, that is rebellion against God. Rather than play with the world, rather than run our own lives in our very limited wisdom, if we are to be true followers of Christ we must submit to Him, stay as far from sin and the world as we can, striving to be holy, for He is holy.

I agree about holiness and modesty. But if you mean I am being rebellious because my wife wears pants, I don't see it.

[HappyChristian]

Jerry8 and John, I can't speak for Annie, but I don't believe she meant that pastors aren't responsible for their members. She is right in that we are responsible for ourselves rather than others though - the Bible tells us we each give an account of ourselves to the Lord. However...spiritual leaders do give account as well, as do parents for the rearing of their children.

[1John2:15-17]

No, it's as Jerry said, the Bible has the answers if one is truly interested in finding the answer and actually following Christ. The issue of modesty is not a difficult one. Most of the body should be covered and it should not be covered by form fitting clothing.

You seem to want to continually reject Scripture in favor of your own desires or your own preferences. When any of us do this, that is rebellion against God. Rather than play with the world, rather than run our own lives in our very limited wisdom, if we are to be true followers of Christ we must submit to Him, stay as far from sin and the world as we can, striving to be holy, for He is holy.

Amen.....unfortunately today's "smooth" Christianity wants to have both, professing their being "saved" all the while they continue to be in the world, walk with the world, talk like the world, etc. Too many people today want to change Christianity to fit their lifestyle (or pick and choose what parts of the Bible to adhere to). As said before, today's "progressive" churches are too focused on coffee shops, bookstores, and social gathering, while not truly preaching the Bible......come as you are, leave the same, don't worry, you're ok....

Yes, when one gets saved the "world" doesn't leave instantly, rather the Holy Spirit works on the new child of God and "convicts" the new child of God and things he/she had done begin to disappear. One will not want to intentionally do anything that is against God and His word.

As I heard once - when a saved person/Christian willingly knows something is sinful and goes ahead and does it anyway, he/she is basically spitting in God's face, telling God "I'm gonna do it anyway."

It's been said before, what part of "be ye separate" is not understood?

[HappyChristian]

:goodpost:

[rancher824]

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.

John, where do we draw the line on tight or not tight? Does not the very cut of jeans or pants show the outline of the body, male or female? You say that the pants men wear to work are not tight (you do not know some of the men I know, lol) and provide nothing to look at. I humbly disagree. We live in such a fallen world that some women are still going to look at a man in loose jeans You say women's pants "tend' to be either to tight or to loose. Is there in your eyes, like men's pants, a point that they are just right? Why is it that men's pants are not the same, "tending" to be either to be either to tight or to loose? You mention skirts being women's clothing. Not that I am disagreeing, but would that include thinks such as a kilt or the hanging of a robe? As to the robes being all they knew how to make at that time, are you sure about that? Just for a thought, Jesus coat was made without seam, woven from the top throughout. They knew how to do such as this. Was it that they did not know how, or that it was not the style? Go back to what I said about Adam. He did not know how to make clothing. But God made them coats. Now if the coats were coverings, not specific of something like unto a robe, but more on the direction of Adam pants and Eve a dress, they would have had a pattern to follow in making Cain and Abel pants to match Adam's. But if it was a robe, it would explain why man did not wear pants until more modern times. But it also brings in the question, if they did know how to make pants is the reason they wore robes, why did God not know how to make pants? If pants are the proper dress code for men, why do we find us going back to robes in the book of Revelation? Is there not enough principal in the fact that God clothed us in the beginning in robes and will cloth us in the end with robes, that there is even a possibilty that God would have us wearing robes in the middle (today)?
Back to the dancing, though I basicly agree with you, this is not the old time baptist way of looking at it. My mother knew if she was caught dancing in her room alone, she would be in trouble. The general public used to talk about that baptists do not dance. We have fallen away from this in modern times, but that is the way it is. But your statement about provocative dancing alone is exactly what David did!! Michal at least accused him of uncovering himself before the madens. But it seems she is the one that got punished rather than him. There is not to my knowledge any record of him being rebuked by God or the prophets of God.

[rancher824]

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.

Dennis, I am sorry that my post was hard to follow. I was fighting with a 5 month old that is cutting teeth. So my thought process is not working as it should. I realize there are ways to stand out even dressing in modern clothes. Your example of the ten commandment tie is a very good point. But even passed that I figure that there is at least a chance in the case of the guard you mentioned, as seeing the way you act as much if not more than the way you dress. He may ( I do not know) have seen you through the week and took note of your daily walk. Knowing all of this he may have came to the conclussion. I know people watch the way we walk each day!!

[John81]

John, where do we draw the line on tight or not tight? Does not the very cut of jeans or pants show the outline of the body, male or female? You say that the pants men wear to work are not tight (you do not know some of the men I know, lol) and provide nothing to look at. I humbly disagree. We live in such a fallen world that some women are still going to look at a man in loose jeans You say women's pants "tend' to be either to tight or to loose. Is there in your eyes, like men's pants, a point that they are just right? Why is it that men's pants are not the same, "tending" to be either to be either to tight or to loose? You mention skirts being women's clothing. Not that I am disagreeing, but would that include thinks such as a kilt or the hanging of a robe? As to the robes being all they knew how to make at that time, are you sure about that? Just for a thought, Jesus coat was made without seam, woven from the top throughout. They knew how to do such as this. Was it that they did not know how, or that it was not the style? Go back to what I said about Adam. He did not know how to make clothing. But God made them coats. Now if the coats were coverings, not specific of something like unto a robe, but more on the direction of Adam pants and Eve a dress, they would have had a pattern to follow in making Cain and Abel pants to match Adam's. But if it was a robe, it would explain why man did not wear pants until more modern times. But it also brings in the question, if they did know how to make pants is the reason they wore robes, why did God not know how to make pants? If pants are the proper dress code for men, why do we find us going back to robes in the book of Revelation? Is there not enough principal in the fact that God clothed us in the beginning in robes and will cloth us in the end with robes, that there is even a possibilty that God would have us wearing robes in the middle (today)?
Back to the dancing, though I basicly agree with you, this is not the old time baptist way of looking at it. My mother knew if she was caught dancing in her room alone, she would be in trouble. The general public used to talk about that baptists do not dance. We have fallen away from this in modern times, but that is the way it is. But your statement about provocative dancing alone is exactly what David did!! Michal at least accused him of uncovering himself before the madens. But it seems she is the one that got punished rather than him. There is not to my knowledge any record of him being rebuked by God or the prophets of God.

Tight is form fitting. Loose is not form fitting and gives plenty of room to move for work and play. If a man wears his pants tight, then that isn't modest. Most men I know who wear blue jeans for work are doing physical labor and their pants are loose to allow for freedom of movement and there is no form fitting at all. Women's pants are specifically made to fit the female form and are designed to be worn in a manner that is form fitting. Men's pants are either cut to be worn tight (immodest) for show or loose for work. In fact, if you look at pants specifically designed for work, the same size in those pants is much looser than that size in the other category.

With regards to kilts and robes, in the cultures that use such, the kilt is very distinctive from what women were just as are the robes.

Again, with regards to clothes, as others have mentioned, the issue mostly revolves around modesty. Are the clothes modest. Next, are the clothes distinct between the sexes.

With regards to dancing it depends upon what Baptists you are referring to. For many Baptists, there is no dancing. This is primarily because the vast majority of dancing and music danced to is wicked.

David was not dancing in a provocative manner and he was not uncovered in the sense of naked. Taking the context as a whole it's clear that what his wife was complaining about amounted to her thinking David was not being as dinified as her dad was as king and that he was "uncovering" himself in the sense of showing himself in more of a "common man" light. She thought his actions of worshipping God so freely would lower the esteem she thought the maidens should hold him in. David's wife was rebuked for judging David based upon her father's actions as king and for not respecting David in his worship of the Lord.

If one looks to ancient Hebrew dancing in the style which David likely partook of, it included leaps and jumps, but nothing provocative.

[rancher824]

Tight is form fitting. Loose is not form fitting and gives plenty of room to move for work and play. If a man wears his pants tight, then that isn't modest. Most men I know who wear blue jeans for work are doing physical labor and their pants are loose to allow for freedom of movement and there is no form fitting at all. Women's pants are specifically made to fit the female form and are designed to be worn in a manner that is form fitting. Men's pants are either cut to be worn tight (immodest) for show or loose for work. In fact, if you look at pants specifically designed for work, the same size in those pants is much looser than that size in the other category.

With regards to kilts and robes, in the cultures that use such, the kilt is very distinctive from what women were just as are the robes.

Again, with regards to clothes, as others have mentioned, the issue mostly revolves around modesty. Are the clothes modest. Next, are the clothes distinct between the sexes.

With regards to dancing it depends upon what Baptists you are referring to. For many Baptists, there is no dancing. This is primarily because the vast majority of dancing and music danced to is wicked.

David was not dancing in a provocative manner and he was not uncovered in the sense of naked. Taking the context as a whole it's clear that what his wife was complaining about amounted to her thinking David was not being as dinified as her dad was as king and that he was "uncovering" himself in the sense of showing himself in more of a "common man" light. She thought his actions of worshipping God so freely would lower the esteem she thought the maidens should hold him in. David's wife was rebuked for judging David based upon her father's actions as king and for not respecting David in his worship of the Lord.

If one looks to ancient Hebrew dancing in the style which David likely partook of, it included leaps and jumps, but nothing provocative.

Is loose really not form fitting? I mean even with the overalls my dad wears (and as loose as overalls fit he usually wants them at least 1 or 2 sizes bigger for extra room) it could be said it shows the form. When a man in loose jeans stoops they become tighter showing more of the form. A robe does neither. I am not saying that jeans are definitly wrong. I am saying that we have accepted them because the world has accepted them. We are willing to fight for them even knowing that God started us with and will end us with robes. And yes you are correct, the real question should be is it modest. But that is what I am asking. Not is it modest in our eyes, but is it modest in God's eyes!!!! I know ladies that wear slacks that would argue all day long that they are modest. But most here would say they are not. Before someone throws in they are men's clothing, you said kilts are different from women's and women's pants are cut different. So we need to find whether it is modest in God's plan more so than in our plan before we attack.

[rancher824]

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.

I am not condemning the extra standards for leadership, but I do have a question. What would your pastor have done if he had a man who felt he should wear robes that desired a leadership position? Would he have been required to give up the robes for slacks?? As to your reason for wearing a suit on sunday, I feel it is a better explanation than what most would give!!!

[Covenanter]

We could always wear robes like the priests, monks & nuns, of RC & pagan religions. Locally many of the Muslims (men & boys) wear what look like night shirts to Friday prayers. There are always pagan clerics on the streets wearing robes.

And, John, you say "Most men I know who wear blue jeans for work are doing physical labor and their pants are loose to allow for freedom of movement and there is no form fitting at all." When did did you last look at a building site & NOT see the unedifying sight known as builders' b**.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Covenanter

[John81]

Is loose really not form fitting? I mean even with the overalls my dad wears (and as loose as overalls fit he usually wants them at least 1 or 2 sizes bigger for extra room) it could be said it shows the form. When a man in loose jeans stoops they become tighter showing more of the form. A robe does neither. I am not saying that jeans are definitly wrong. I am saying that we have accepted them because the world has accepted them. We are willing to fight for them even knowing that God started us with and will end us with robes. And yes you are correct, the real question should be is it modest. But that is what I am asking. Not is it modest in our eyes, but is it modest in God's eyes!!!! I know ladies that wear slacks that would argue all day long that they are modest. But most here would say they are not. Before someone throws in they are men's clothing, you said kilts are different from women's and women's pants are cut different. So we need to find whether it is modest in God's plan more so than in our plan before we attack.

No, if it's loose it's not form fitting and they should be loose enough that even when one bends in working they are not tight.

In any event, Scripture doesn't tell Christians to wear robes, it does say we are to dress modestly. Blue jeans were not invented as a worldly clothing item, they were invented to provide rugged, durable clothing to work in. When first invented they were anything but immodest and a belt or suspenders were virtually always necessary as they were so loose fitting on most all who purchased them. It was many decades later that blue jeans became a part of daily wear and companies began manufacturing some of them to be form fitting.

Women's pants are made different than men's but the main aspect of their difference is they are made to highlight and enhance the female form. Women's pants are made specifically not to be modest.

Had God wanted all His people to wear robes we would have been told specifically to always wear robes and never to wear any other kind of clothing. God knew the various forms of clothing different cultures would wear over the centuries and yet the only stipulations God gave regarding clothing was for us to wear clothing that is modest and pertaining to our own sex; nothing about a specific style of clothes.

[farouk]

Women's pants are made specifically not to be modest.

I'm sure my wife wouldn't agree...