Disturbing trend

[John81]

There are many things Scripture is clear on that we are to separate ourselves from. There are other areas where Scripture is either not specific or even silent on an issue (in the case of Scripture being silent on an issue, we must search the Scriptures for principles that apply).

Women wearing dresses is not an outright command of Scripture. Scripture says men are to dress like men and women like women. To some, that means women should wear dresses. To others, they see no problem wearing 'non-sexy' women's pants because they are designed specifically for women and they are not designed to highlight their feminine features.

Sometimes, Christians go to extremes in demanding what Scripture doesn't outright say. There are still churches that won't accept a man called of God to preach having a beard! As we've discussed here before, some churches demand pastors wear white shirts.

Now, if they make it clear these are personal preferences there is no real problem with such, but when they begin telling folks they are sinning or outside the will of God because they wear a beard or they wear a navy blue shirt, then a problem has come up.

[Pastorj]

I agree completely with you John.

Suzy, you brought up things that are clearly against scripture: fornication, etc. This is completely different than a topic that Scripture is not clear or is silent as John said.

The feel comment: It is not about feelings, it is about preferences. I have a preference that I can't stand Southern Gospel (new or old). However, there are a number of people on this board that love it. Are they in sin? Some would say they are. However, Scripture gives clear principles regarding music and some of it would not violate Scripture, just as some "CCM" would not violate it. The problem with CCM is that most of it is not doctrinally sound. I heard one preacher say that Ron Hamilton was CCM and anyone who listens to him is in sin.

[Anon]

What's confusing is...for instance I feel God is pretty clear on women's dress. How is it that others do not see God as clear on this?

Also I feel in my spirit (there is "feel" I realize this) pretty clear against much CCM and southern gospel that is too modern. Why do others think this music is just fine? Why would the Holy Spirit make me uncomfortable but allow others to love it?

[Guest Guest]

What's confusing is...for instance I feel God is pretty clear on women's dress. How is it that others do not see God as clear on this?

Also I feel in my spirit (there is "feel" I realize this) pretty clear against much CCM and southern gospel that is too modern. Why do others think this music is just fine? Why would the Holy Spirit make me uncomfortable but allow others to love it?

What's "too modern"? That's personal opinion, basically your subjective opinion. What one person finds offensive or "too modern" might be perfectly fine for someone else, simply because the Lord hasn't convicted him about that issue. It's not our place to declare someone wrong or sinful because they have liberty to do something that we don't.

[John81]

Great post Pastorj!!! :thumb

Suzy, with regards to some of the music, part of it is personal preference and part of it may just be our unique natures. For some of us, certain styles of music might be a problem for us in some way (whether we even know it or not) while for others they may not be.

This is a worldy example, but it's clear so that's why I am using it. Many secular country music songs glorify drinking alcohol. I grew up listening to country music and never once did any of those country songs give me the urge to have a beer or make me think I should or anything else like that. However, for tens of thousands of others, when they listen to the same songs they immediately want to go to the tavern or pop a Bud right there.

Apparently, I have a strong resistence to such pro-alcohol messages in that music while it seems many others are very much influenced by the same messages to go get drunk.

I sure hope that makes as much sense as I meant it to...

[Pastorj]

Suzy,

The simple answer is that God works with people in different ways. Every individual has personal preferences that can even be based somewhat on Scripture. I have held to a number of beliefs that I no longer hold to because those beliefs were based on a improper interepetation of Scripture.

Example:
When you and I were younger, preachers had been trained during the 50's and 60's when the pants revolution was occurring or shortly after it. They grew up with the position that pants were men's clothing and therefore interpreted the Deut passage to say pants are sin. So instead of preaching modesty, they preached against pants on women. They should have been preaching modesty and uniqueness as Scripture teaches. Were they wrong in saying pants were sin back then? No, because of the association of them. However, the problem is carrying over that association 60 years later. It is not there and we are left with people who have heard Godly men who misapplied Scripture.

[brosmith]

When you and I were younger' date=' preachers had been trained during the 50's and 60's when the pants revolution was occurring or shortly after it. They grew up with the position that pants were men's clothing and therefore interpreted the Deut passage to say pants are sin.[/quote']

Please read the following article.

http://www.bookrags.com/history/pants-for-women-sjpc-04/



This is why preachers like me are against pants on women. It has its origins in the feminist movement and the unisex movement. Pants on women express a definite rebellious attitude. I will guarantee that preachers condemned pants on women long before the '50s and '60s.

[Pastorj]

Bro. Smith,

I have no problem with pants being "condemned prior to the 50's. They may have indeed come out of the feminist movement, but that is really irrelevant today. Since you have absolutely no Scripture to support your view of no pants, other than they are "man's" clothing. I will no continue to argue the same point I have made. Stand on Scripture, not on man's opinions.

If you want to be consistent in your arguments, we should all go back to the dress of Bible times. If you agree that dress has changed since then and you must, then you must also concede that it can continue to change, which you won't and therein lies the problem.

Now if we hold to a Scriptural position on dress, it doesn't matter what century, custom, country we belong to. We can always hold to a Biblical position and dress properly.

[Revelation3:20]

I suppose the question that naturally follows is: "is it ok for guys to wear dresses and lipstick." If not why not? If not because it isn't culturally acceptable today will it be ok if "times change in say, 50-60 years?

[brosmith]

I have no problem with pants being "condemned prior to the 50's. They may have indeed come out of the feminist movement' date=' but that is really irrelevant today.[/quote']

A rebellious spirit is far from being irrelevant. The feminist movement came from a rebellious spirit. The rock and roll culture came from a rebellious spirit. The hippie movement came from a rebellious spirit. Pants on women came from a rebellious spirit. Women wanted to look and act like men. Definitely not of God.

1John 4:1 - "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

[Pastorj]

Were not living in the 50's or 60's last time I checked. In 2008 a woman wearing pants is not wearing them to be rebellious and since Scripture does not condemn them how can you.

[Bakershalfdozen]

I have conservative music preferences and clothing preferences and I don't believe it is wrong for a woman to wear pants.

That being said, at which one point in history was there the "right clothing" that everyone should still adhere to and at which one point in history was the "right music" played that everyone should still adhere to?


Do you dress like they did 2000 years ago? Yes or no. [Lovin' those muslim-looking robes on you men!]

Do you dress like they did 500 years ago? Yes or no. [Lovin' those tights on you men! And you really should take off that necktie because the homos started that trend.]

Do you dress like they did 200 years ago? Yes or no. [Wow, that wig and that long nightshirt (kinda looks like a dress to me :thumbdown ) are so fashionable, guys.]


My dad doesn't like denim or facial hair on men because he associates those with the rebellious hippie movement of the 60s. That is his preference and he is allowed to have that. To me, denim is a kind of clothing material and is not evil in and of itself. Facial hair is clearly not an issue because Jesus had a beard as did most if not all of the Jewish men in Bible times. Why is it that our IFB churches insist on being clean-shaven??? Is it wrong to be clean-shaven? Is it wrong to not be clean-shaven? Why? Scripture, please.



Musical changes have always been frowned upon for hundreds of years. The Godly Fanny Crosby style music we all love today was condemned for being "too worldly" way back when. A modern (you can call it CCM if you want, I guess) hymn titled, "In Christ Alone" is one of the most beautiful, theologically-deep songs I have ever heard! Should I reject it because it wasn't written by a Baptist??


We can look at nature and see that God loves variety. He didn't make everything exactly the same. Jesus being THE ONLY way to Heaven is an example of something clearly spelled out in Scripture but in areas that are not clearly spelled out, I'm convinced that He is pleased when one of His children worships Him in spirit and in truth whether the vehicle is conservative, sacred traditional (my preference) or Southern Gospel which I personally can't stand - but there are many accurate, theological songs in that genre as well as others.


Most men who smoked 200 years ago used pipes and it wasn't considered a sin or even gross. Why? Because most did it moderately as a means of unwinding, much like a hot bath or a cup of tea today. It wasn't a dirty, disgusting addiction like the cigarette problem we have today. So, was Spurgeon sinning?


How about altar calls while we're at it. Is a pastor who doesn't give one every service sinning? Why do pastors give them? Has this always been a practice since N.T. times? Is it wrong to give them? Is it wrong not to give them? Some ppl think it is a sin if there isn't one. Why? Verses of Scripture, please.


Is a church that doesn't have the standard 3 services a week + Sunday School sinning? Why or why not? Scripture, please.


I agree with the poster (forgot who) who stated (forgot where) that some Baptists tend to be very Catholic-like with their traditions and commandments of men.

[John81]

I have conservative music preferences and clothing preferences and I don't believe it is wrong for a woman to wear pants.

That being said, at which one point in history was there the "right clothing" that everyone should still adhere to and at which one point in history was the "right music" played that everyone should still adhere to?


Do you dress like they did 2000 years ago? Yes or no. [Lovin' those muslim-looking robes on you men!]

Do you dress like they did 500 years ago? Yes or no. [Lovin' those tights on you men! And you really should take off that necktie because the homos started that trend.]

Do you dress like they did 200 years ago? Yes or no. [Wow, that wig and that long nightshirt (kinda looks like a dress to me :thumbdown ) are so fashionable, guys.]


My dad doesn't like denim or facial hair on men because he associates those with the rebellious hippie movement of the 60s. That is his preference and he is allowed to have that. To me, denim is a kind of clothing material and is not evil in and of itself. Facial hair is clearly not an issue because Jesus had a beard as did most if not all of the Jewish men in Bible times. Why is it that our IFB churches insist on being clean-shaven??? Is it wrong to be clean-shaven? Is it wrong to not be clean-shaven? Why? Scripture, please.



Musical changes have always been frowned upon for hundreds of years. The Godly Fanny Crosby style music we all love today was condemned for being "too worldly" way back when. A modern (you can call it CCM if you want, I guess) hymn titled, "In Christ Alone" is one of the most beautiful, theologically-deep songs I have ever heard! Should I reject it because it wasn't written by a Baptist??


We can look at nature and see that God loves variety. He didn't make everything exactly the same. Jesus being THE ONLY way to Heaven is an example of something clearly spelled out in Scripture but in areas that are not clearly spelled out, I'm convinced that He is pleased when one of His children worships Him in spirit and in truth whether the vehicle is conservative, sacred traditional (my preference) or Southern Gospel which I personally can't stand - but there are many accurate, theological songs in that genre as well as others.


Most men who smoked 200 years ago used pipes and it wasn't considered a sin or even gross. Why? Because most did it moderately as a means of unwinding, much like a hot bath or a cup of tea today. It wasn't a dirty, disgusting addiction like the cigarette problem we have today. So, was Spurgeon sinning?


How about altar calls while we're at it. Is a pastor who doesn't give one every service sinning? Why do pastors give them? Has this always been a practice since N.T. times? Is it wrong to give them? Is it wrong not to give them? Some ppl think it is a sin if there isn't one. Why? Verses of Scripture, please.


Is a church that doesn't have the standard 3 services a week + Sunday School sinning? Why or why not? Scripture, please.


I agree with the poster (forgot who) who stated (forgot where) that some Baptists tend to be very Catholic-like with their traditions and commandments of men.

:thumb

[Annie]

If I may attempt to redirect this thread back to its original purpose (which I'm thinking was not to discuss pants on women), could I ask a couple of questions? The original post was lamenting the fact that there seems to be a disturbing trend among fundamentalists--that today's fundamentalists are beginning to resemble what used to be called "neoevangelicals." (I understand that term has become obsolete in recent years.)

In the original post, Kitagrl listed a few of her own observations regarding areas in which she feels we are "going downhill." If I remember correctly, they were church attendance (and pastors "giving in" to those who do not choose to attend church faithfully), tithing, the pants on women issue <>, and the music issue.

My perspective is a bit different from Kitagrl's, because in all my 30 years in IFB-Land, I can count on one hand the number of sermons in which the speaker "preached against" pants on women. That issue has never been "big" in the fundamentalist circles I've run in. So, I can't really comment on that "change" in fundamentalism, since there has been no change from my perspective.

Now...moving on to OTHER observations made by Kitagrl...I think it is important to distinguish apples from oranges in a discussion like this one. Doctrinal issues are different from application issues. Application issues are different from clear biblical principles. I think a comparison was made between the pants on women issue and homosexuality...something like, "Fifty years from now, will fundamentalist pastors stop calling homosexuality sin, since by then it will be culturally accepted?" (BTW, I think homosexuality is already culturally accepted, but that's beside the point.) IMO, this statement is likening apples to oranges. Romans 1 flat out states that homosexuality is wrong. This fact transcends all cultures for all time. Homosexuality is not at all a "cultural issue." However, the "pants on women" issue is cultural. People on both sides acknowledge that it is inherently a cultural issue, since the Bible simply does not mention specific garments (worn in modern times) which are "male" and "female." Sure, modesty and gender appropriateness are culturally transcendent principles, but we have to use our noggins and the Holy Spirit's guidance to figure out what is modest and gender-appropriate in our culture. Of course, we will disagree on particulars, but again, that's an application issue.

[brosmith]

Were not living in the 50's or 60's last time I checked.

However, if it was a sin 50 years ago then it is still a sin today. Cultural changes should not determine standards of righteousness and holiness. Just because something is culturally accepted doesn't make it right.

What I see in the scriptures are 3 principles that apply to dress standards:

#1 - A Definite Sexual Distinction - Deuteronomy 22:5; 1Corinthians 11:14,15
#2 - Identification with Christ (not with world) - Philippians 1:27; Romans 12:2
#3 - Modest Apparel (not drawing attention) - 1Timothy 2:9,10; 1Peter 3:1-6

Pants on women may be socially and culturally acceptable but they are not Biblically acceptable.