Conservatism versus hyper-conservatism?

[JerryNumbers]

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

When the topic of dressing comes up, there is much of this that takes place.

Seems like today most women s jeans are made with the woman already in them, there's no way they can put jeans on that fits that tight, are they?

[John81]

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

When the topic of dressing comes up, there is much of this that takes place.

Seems like today most women s jeans are made with the woman already in them, there's no way they can put jeans on that fits that tight, are they?

Indeed, there are far too many that think their view or opinion outweighs Scripture and even reality.


Proverbs 4:23-27

²³Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

²⁴Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.
²⁵Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
²⁶Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.
²⁷Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

[rancher824]

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.

Well, I put on a pair of slacks this morning. The kind that if I did not wear a belt would ride way to low to be modest. I then went in to my wife and asked how I looked. She looked puzzled because I never ask such. But I continued to question her. She told me that she did see something to look at even though my slacks are loose fitting. I told her that it was said that loose pants gave nothing to look at. She said "they are crazy." I wonder if us men are as blind to the fact women look at us as the ladies are that we look at them!!!
John you have never answered my question, would it be possible for a lady to wear pants that were not to loose or to tight?
On your last paragraph, could that not be said of many other things? I mean God knew that we would have movie theatres, and yet there is not a specific statement against such. Not even a thou shalt not go to theatrical works or plays. It is not there, yet we preach against such. God knew we would have a public school system, yet he did not say thou shalt not let anyone but a child's parents teach them. Yes he told us to teach them all his ways. But he never forbids us using so method other than home schooling to teach secular subjects. He never forbid having a choir clapping and swaying to the music, but I would venture to say most here would get up and leave a church that had such "ungodly actions" going on.

[John81]

Well, I put on a pair of slacks this morning. The kind that if I did not wear a belt would ride way to low to be modest. I then went in to my wife and asked how I looked. She looked puzzled because I never ask such. But I continued to question her. She told me that she did see something to look at even though my slacks are loose fitting. I told her that it was said that loose pants gave nothing to look at. She said "they are crazy." I wonder if us men are as blind to the fact women look at us as the ladies are that we look at them!!!
John you have never answered my question, would it be possible for a lady to wear pants that were not to loose or to tight?
On your last paragraph, could that not be said of many other things? I mean God knew that we would have movie theatres, and yet there is not a specific statement against such. Not even a thou shalt not go to theatrical works or plays. It is not there, yet we preach against such. God knew we would have a public school system, yet he did not say thou shalt not let anyone but a child's parents teach them. Yes he told us to teach them all his ways. But he never forbids us using so method other than home schooling to teach secular subjects. He never forbid having a choir clapping and swaying to the music, but I would venture to say most here would get up and leave a church that had such "ungodly actions" going on.

If the pants were loose in the rear there would be nothing to see. Of course, if anyone wants to take the time to seriously try to find something they probably can.

I've not yet seen pants on a woman that was modest.

The vast majority of movies are wicked, which is why such are preached against. As with clothing, the principles are there for us to make right choices by.

[rancher824]

If the pants were loose in the rear there would be nothing to see. Of course, if anyone wants to take the time to seriously try to find something they probably can.

I've not yet seen pants on a woman that was modest.

The vast majority of movies are wicked, which is why such are preached against. As with clothing, the principles are there for us to make right choices by.

What I am saying is that today women watch a mans behind whether or not the pants are tight. I admit they are going to look more if they are tight. But some are going to look no matter.
I am not talking about the vast majority of movies. I am talking about the fact that many IFB preachers today, and most baptist preachers of yesteryear preach against going to any movies. It (like dancing) has always been something conservative baptists do not go to period. Actually the time frame that our belief against movie theatres comes from had less wickedness in them that what most IFB's allow in there living rooms. And if you are looking for principals, the Biblical model is for men to be in robes. God put them there in the beginning, and will return us to them in eternity.

Edited to add (just for the fun of it) "I've not yet seen pants on a woman that was modest." But "Of course, if anyone wants to take the time to seriously try to find something they probably can." Edited August 14, 2011 by rancher824

[Invicta]

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.

No reason, I just would think it disrespectful to go in jeans or other workwear. I once read the history of a local sect called The Peculiar People. They were mostly working farm people and often had only one set of clothes. However they had a Sunday smock which they wore over their working clothes, so why would I want to dress in working clothes to go to a service?

[John81]

What I am saying is that today women watch a mans behind whether or not the pants are tight. I admit they are going to look more if they are tight. But some are going to look no matter.
I am not talking about the vast majority of movies. I am talking about the fact that many IFB preachers today, and most baptist preachers of yesteryear preach against going to any movies. It (like dancing) has always been something conservative baptists do not go to period. Actually the time frame that our belief against movie theatres comes from had less wickedness in them that what most IFB's allow in there living rooms. And if you are looking for principals, the Biblical model is for men to be in robes. God put them there in the beginning, and will return us to them in eternity.

Edited to add (just for the fun of it) "I've not yet seen pants on a woman that was modest." But "Of course, if anyone wants to take the time to seriously try to find something they probably can."

Obviously you are stuck on the idea men should be wearing robes though Scripture never says that. If you really believe that, you should be wearing a robe, otherwise, as Scripture says, it is sin for you.

Scripture says we are to dress modest, it doesn't say "dress so no one will ever look at you". Even in a robe, some people will look for any hint of something. Which reminds me of the old man they interviewed about changes during his lifetime. He commented that today women walk around practically naked but when he was young they were covered from feet to neck. Him and a friend used to sit near the end of the walk in front of the stores (the old wooden kind of walks) because when ladies went to step up onto the walk they would lift their dress a bit and sometimes they could see an ankle! The woman was dressed modestly, the sin in that situation was him as a young man looking to lust. The same applies today, if one is dressed modestly and someone yet looks to lust, the sin is totally upon them. However, if one is dressed immodest and someone looks to lust then there is sin on both parts and Scripture warns of the danger of causing others to sin.

Early movies were not tame. At that time there was no censorship and many movies featured nudity and worldly vices positively. Even once the rating system came into effect the movies were typically immoral and while they no longer showed nudity, they took the time to imply sexuality, mostly through immodest clothing, looks and gestures. The immorality of virtually all movies is why they were preached against, and still are. In order to avoid even the appearance of evil, it was preached that Christians should not attend the theater. Biblical approaches.

I appreciate your attempt at humor, and no doubt when I was young it didn't matter what a woman was wearing I was looking. Thankfully, only through Christ, I no longer do that.

[John81]

No reason, I just would think it disrespectful to go in jeans or other workwear. I once read the history of a local sect called The Peculiar People. They were mostly working farm people and often had only one set of clothes. However they had a Sunday smock which they wore over their working clothes, so why would I want to dress in working clothes to go to a service?

It should be a matter of respect, in giving our best to the Lord. One persons best might differ from another, but we should respect God enough to wear our best whenever at all possible.

[Seth Doty]

And if you are looking for principals, the Biblical model is for men to be in robes. God put them there in the beginning, and will return us to them in eternity.

I know your being tongue in cheek on this, but in all seriousness robes on guys doesn't bother me in the least. Not a conviction I have, but it would not bother me if someone else felt like they should. Further, if Christian men dressing in robes somehow meant a lot more Christian women would dress like ladies I wouldn't object to wearing robes.


As for my personal opinion I find Christian women wearing pants to be highly unladylike. Now is it a fact of life today? Yes, no doubt about it. Am I going to separate from someone who disagrees? Unlikely if that is the only issue. Even so I do find it offensive. I think it is one of those things that ought not be done by a Christian lady. Why? because I think the average Christian woman in any type of pants is going to automatically tempt the guys? Not really even though I don't think it is possible for pants to be as modest as a long loose dress. After all I see women wearing far less and far worse every day as does just about anyone who goes anywhere in public. As a result of our culture many or perhaps most guys tend to be fairly desensitized to immodesty until it starts getting extreme. Thus women who want attention and a reaction are always trying to push the culturally accepted limits even further. Now with that said even though I like most guys tend to be fairly desensitized to immodesty ,at least up to a certain point, I still recognize it for what is and appreciate it when I see a lady dressed and behaving in a manner that brings to mind 1st Timothy 2:9-10. Even many lost unsaved men that are certainly not gentlemen notice(in a good non-lustful way) and respect this kind of lady when they see one. I will tell you that from what I have seen that the kind of lady that gets that sort of respect from men who are not normally gentlemen doesn't exactly tend to be the type that has any desire to wear short hair, heavy makeup, low cut clothing, pants etc. Nor do they tend to wear or do anything else that is not undoubtedly both modest and ladylike. That is the type of lady I think all Christian women should try to be but the type only a fairly small portion actually are.

Though these are my views on the subject practically speaking I don't consider it my problem as I am not a lady, not married, and hold no type of church office. At any rate If someone is convicted of this it is usually due to the leading of the Lord rather than the result of a lengthy discussion of the matter. People with opposing views on this subject can stand nose to nose and go back and forth for weeks at a time and never see eye to eye. :musicboohoo:

[rancher824]

I looked for the post this is replying to, but did not find it (wrong page I am sure lol)

I went back to 2 Sam 6 and looked more into David's dancing. I went to John Gill, and he agrees that it was a matter of not showing dignity. I, on the other hand, see it as showing flesh she did not approve of. My reasoning for this is she said he uncovered himself before his servants handmaids. Why does this matter? Because in this day and time dignity would have been worried about before the males more than the females. But lack of covering physically would be more important before the females. I also looked to the works of Josephus (no I do not put a whole lot of stock in them, but they do give us the thoughts of a jew shortly after the time of Christ, He said of it "But when Michal his wife, the daughter of Saul, came and stood by him, she wished him all other happiness, and entreated that whatsoever he should further desire, to the utmost possibility, might be given him by God, and that he might be favorable to him; yet did she blame him, that so great a king as he was should dance after an unseemly manner, and in his dancing, uncover himself among the servants and the handmaidens. But he replied, that he was not ashamed to do what was acceptable to God, who had preferred him before her father, and before all others; that he would play frequently, and dance, without any regard to what the handmaidens and she herself thought of it. So this Michal, who was David's wife, had no children; however, when she was afterward married to him to whom Saul her father had given her, (for at this time David had taken her away from him, and had her himself,) she bare five children. But concerning those matters I shall discourse in a proper place." Here it at least sounds to me Josephus says he uncovered himself physically. Now that may not mean he was uncovered any higher than his knees, but he was uncovered enough she felt it was immodest.

[rancher824]

Obviously you are stuck on the idea men should be wearing robes though Scripture never says that. If you really believe that, you should be wearing a robe, otherwise, as Scripture says, it is sin for you.

Scripture says we are to dress modest, it doesn't say "dress so no one will ever look at you". Even in a robe, some people will look for any hint of something. Which reminds me of the old man they interviewed about changes during his lifetime. He commented that today women walk around practically naked but when he was young they were covered from feet to neck. Him and a friend used to sit near the end of the walk in front of the stores (the old wooden kind of walks) because when ladies went to step up onto the walk they would lift their dress a bit and sometimes they could see an ankle! The woman was dressed modestly, the sin in that situation was him as a young man looking to lust. The same applies today, if one is dressed modestly and someone yet looks to lust, the sin is totally upon them. However, if one is dressed immodest and someone looks to lust then there is sin on both parts and Scripture warns of the danger of causing others to sin.

Early movies were not tame. At that time there was no censorship and many movies featured nudity and worldly vices positively. Even once the rating system came into effect the movies were typically immoral and while they no longer showed nudity, they took the time to imply sexuality, mostly through immodest clothing, looks and gestures. The immorality of virtually all movies is why they were preached against, and still are. In order to avoid even the appearance of evil, it was preached that Christians should not attend the theater. Biblical approaches.

I appreciate your attempt at humor, and no doubt when I was young it didn't matter what a woman was wearing I was looking. Thankfully, only through Christ, I no longer do that.

I did some research, and found you are correct as to some of the early movies being very wicked. But I also thought as I read your description of them that you could just as easily be describing the internet so many of us have in our homes. I still believe that many of our ancesters that preached so strong against the movie houses would have thrown out the tv and internet computer for the same reasons.

[rancher824]

I know your being tongue in cheek on this, but in all seriousness robes on guys doesn't bother me in the least. Not a conviction I have, but it would not bother me if someone else felt like they should. Further, if Christian men dressing in robes somehow meant a lot more Christian women would dress like ladies I wouldn't object to wearing robes.


As for my personal opinion I find Christian women wearing pants to be highly unladylike. Now is it a fact of life today? Yes, no doubt about it. Am I going to separate from someone who disagrees? Unlikely if that is the only issue. Even so I do find it offensive. I think it is one of those things that ought not be done by a Christian lady. Why? because I think the average Christian woman in any type of pants is going to automatically tempt the guys? Not really even though I don't think it is possible for pants to be as modest as a long loose dress. After all I see women wearing far less and far worse every day as does just about anyone who goes anywhere in public. As a result of our culture many or perhaps most guys tend to be fairly desensitized to immodesty until it starts getting extreme. Thus women who want attention and a reaction are always trying to push the culturally accepted limits even further. Now with that said even though I like most guys tend to be fairly desensitized to immodesty ,at least up to a certain point, I still recognize it for what is and appreciate it when I see a lady dressed and behaving in a manner that brings to mind 1st Timothy 2:9-10. Even many lost unsaved men that are certainly not gentlemen notice(in a good non-lustful way) and respect this kind of lady when they see one. I will tell you that from what I have seen that the kind of lady that gets that sort of respect from men who are not normally gentlemen doesn't exactly tend to be the type that has any desire to wear short hair, heavy makeup, low cut clothing, pants etc. Nor do they tend to wear or do anything else that is not undoubtedly both modest and ladylike. That is the type of lady I think all Christian women should try to be but the type only a fairly small portion actually are.

Though these are my views on the subject practically speaking I don't consider it my problem as I am not a lady, not married, and hold no type of church office. At any rate If someone is convicted of this it is usually due to the leading of the Lord rather than the result of a lengthy discussion of the matter. People with opposing views on this subject can stand nose to nose and go back and forth for weeks at a time and never see eye to eye.

Yes Seth I am being TIC on this. But at the same time I do believe I could prove this as much as some of the other standards we (note that we includes me) hold so strong to. My reason for this is the hyper conservative question. What would I call a hyper conservative? Would it be one with a lot of standards they themselves hold to?? No, we all have and should have our standards. It is something that is lacking in most of us. What I would term as hyper is those who expect everyone to hold to there list of standards they get from "Biblical Principal" but either get mad at of laugh at those who have different standards. They will tell you that yours must be wrong because they do not match theirs, and God would not lead different. They preach there standards far and wide, and yet if you say you have a standard that they do not have they either tell you you are wrong and\or get mad at you for condeming them. I know of a church that has very high standards on many things. Some of which I feel most of us would agree actually gets them out of the will of God. They are always ready to tell someone they are in sin for not following these standards. But you do not dare tell them they do not meet one of your standards. They would be offended very heavily. I would call them hyper. I have a relative that is this way. He has some standards that my wife and I just do not agree with. We do not flont it in his face (don't even see him very often) but I know the day will more than likely come when through our kids he will see that we do not hold to his standards. I do not look forward to that day in that I know he will more than likely tear into us about being ungodly. But on the other hand, he has some words he uses frequently that I do not approve of (mild words that many here might not have a problem with) that I would rather my kids not hear him use. But I know (from past experience) that if I ask him even nicely to not use those words around my kids he will get mad that I am saying he is bad. This is Hyper. What you said about not liking and even being offended but not seperating makes since. We can hold our standards and even try to teach them. But if we do not have a concrete Bible passage to back them up, we cannot expect everyone to agree with us.

[farouk]

Two points:

1) my use of hyper- in the title probably raises as many questions as it supposedly explains.

2) maybe, since there is a lot of talk about pants, someone (not me) might want to start another thread about them, instead.

[Annie]

Again, I think that labels aren't the most useful things in a conversation like this, because everyone uses them a little differently. I appreciate the time Rancher took to explain what he thinks of when he uses the label hyper-conservative: people who impose their personal standards of practice on others. I, for one, think that just about everybody on the conservative/liberal spectrum does this, though. We all tend to compare ourselves with others, and evaluate others in comparison to ourselves, and ourselves in comparison with others. Anyone, "conservative" or "liberal," who takes the next step--judging someone else's heart and motives on the sole basis that the person's "standards" don't match his own--is out of bounds Scripturally. I find that it is much easier not to start comparing myself with others in the first place. "Comparing themselves among themselves, and measuring themselves by themselves" is not wise, according to Scripture. Better to focus on Christ, and help others to do so, too.

Farouk, if you hang around here long enough, I think you'll find that many threads which start out as general discussions of practice often do trickle down into a focus on one or more specific issues...I think this happens because these issues are ways of illustrating what someone is thinking in the general area...but then, yes, inevitably the specific focus takes over, and someone has to remind everybody about the original topic.

[farouk]

Again, I think that labels aren't the most useful things in a conversation like this, because everyone uses them a little differently. I appreciate the time Rancher took to explain what he thinks of when he uses the label hyper-conservative: people who impose their personal standards of practice on others. I, for one, think that just about everybody on the conservative/liberal spectrum does this, though. We all tend to compare ourselves with others, and evaluate others in comparison to ourselves, and ourselves in comparison with others. Anyone, "conservative" or "liberal," who takes the next step--judging someone else's heart and motives on the sole basis that the person's "standards" don't match his own--is out of bounds Scripturally. I find that it is much easier not to start comparing myself with others in the first place. "Comparing themselves among themselves, and measuring themselves by themselves" is not wise, according to Scripture. Better to focus on Christ, and help others to do so, too.

Farouk, if you hang around here long enough, I think you'll find that many threads which start out as general discussions of practice often do trickle down into a focus on one or more specific issues...I think this happens because these issues are ways of illustrating what someone is thinking in the general area...but then, yes, inevitably the specific focus takes over, and someone has to remind everybody about the original topic.

Annie:

Again, good points that you raise.

Blessings.