So I have a conundrum with this issue of church discipline. Firstly, I am a presbyterian member of a local church, so I understand the issues of church discipline. I also have a "growing pain" with people who think that they can be called a Christian and not be part of a local church. This isn't my problem, though. My problem has to do with the dress code of women in the church and how they need to conduct themselves in the church. I've been in a debate with some people who claim the name of Christ but who do not attend nor are under the discipline of the church.
These are the loci of the debate:

1. Women should not be infringed based of what she wears in the church, i.e., high heels.
2. Individuals with a personal problem ought not to impose upon the women in the church their personal convictions.

OK. I'll deal with those in contrast:

1. The church should force a woman to change her clothes if it stumbles a significant amount of men in the church.
2. The women in the church should be considerate about her brothers' purity with two corollaries in mind:
   1. That she is there to worship God in word and deed and should exhibit that worship in her dress; and
   2. She should shop for clothes with the intention that is without bombast (=showy, flaunt or scandalous).

Those were just the reasons or methods of going about correcting someone. Also, I wouldn't suggest that any member of the church practice the discipline. I had suggested that if there are at least three or more people with a significant problem with the same person—her dress—then the elders should be notified. At this point, the people who espouse this cavalier approach of ignoring those who have the problem suggested that we can't as a church appease everyone. I took that point at face value and said fine. Even if there is a minority of men who struggle, I would say that it is a personal problem and they should deal with it; however, if there are as much as three people, then I think there is a problem. I recognize that this issue is roughly diagnostic and hard to prescribe, especially since the elders' authority is limited to holy living, but its members still ought to obey the elders of the church (see HC 85):
I believe it's the underlying attitude of certain Christians that really bothers me. It is cavalier and frankly too bombastically clothed in mutiny. If you have any suggestions and/or opinions contrary to mine, please let me know. I am open to correction.

__________________
Julio Martinez Jr.
Member of Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA)
My Blog
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children." Hosea 4:6, ESV

Do you classify high heels as inappropriate for women to wear to church?

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Have you tried sitting on the front row? Because if the issue causing a man to stumble is women wearing high heels, it may be his problem, rather than hers.

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

Modesty has to be taught to all and modeled by the mature. I don't endorse mini skirts or burkas. I wouldn't demand suit & tie for men or coveralls.
As far as what style the clothes are, intent should be known. Is a person wearing some flashy outfit? Consider, before criticizing them, that these clothes may be the only change they have beside work clothes and they were donated/gifted to them.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

I'm a little confused by the term "flashy outfit." Different people probably have very different concepts of what constitutes "flashy." Big earrings? Bright colors? Obvious makeup? Very fashionable (but not necessarily skimpy) clothing?

I'm sure that some people would consider the way I dress flashy - I favor bold patterns, geometric prints, larger jewelry etc.

I think I would be extremely cautious about "disciplining" someone for their clothing choices. It should probably only be done if someone is wearing overtly skimpy clothing that is clearly causing people to stumble. And even then, I would have an older woman approach the person (I'm assuming its a female since people rarely criticize male attire) in a charitable manner rather than just invoking "discipline."

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 08:40:30 EST-----

I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble. Something short, low-cut, or tight, I see, but your shoes? Really?

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

Without focusing on one odd little point of contention (the "high heels" example), I'd say that if a woman -- or a man, for that matter -- struggles consistently with modesty in dress, then that person should be approached lovingly by Christian friends about the issue. If need be, it might end up making it all the way to the church's elders talking to him or her (and maybe taking action), but the hope is that it wouldn't get to that point.

Keep in mind that immodesty in dress is broader than (but certainly includes) "showing too much skin".

__________________
Rae W. | Elder @ Grace Central Presbyterian Church | Columbus, OH
Online presence: blog | twitter | facebook

High heels and some other clothing items aren't necessarily inappropriate at church, but we do have to be honest about their purpose. They do lift the calves and show off the legs, click, and draw attention to the wearer. Plus, what's their purpose other than fashion? Are they becoming to a female servant of God? How able would a woman at church who is wearing them serve the Body of Christ? We're not here to be on display and high heels (5 or 6" is what I consider high) and other things women wear "scream" just that. I know, because I've worn clothing in the past for that purpose. And I've had to examine my heart and why I'm wearing something, to church or elsewhere. I'm not saying we should all wear faded jumpers and look frumpy - that's a sin in the other direction, and that gets on my nerves just as much! However, there is a sensible balance about how we dress.

Modesty is more than about clothing. It's about whether or not we draw attention to ourselves through any medium - our dress, gestures, speech, etc. As Christian men and women, we are servants and we need to ask ourselves, how well can I serve the body of Christ wearing this/these, whatever it is.

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

I could see it, to be honest. Not necessarily the height of the heel being a factor, but there are definitely "sexy" shoes.

Modesty is definitely a problem in our generation. There are a few places in Scripture addressed to it, particularly toward the way women dress (though the concept of modesty involves more than that).
Many may not think of it this way, but the way a woman dresses reflects something of love for neighbor. There should always be concern about causing a man to stumble, not an excessive concern, but one nonetheless. We can't biblically take the self-centered attitude that it's only about what I want to dress like because I want to because what I want is all that matters.

Nor can a woman entirely hide herself simply because the Lord made her physically beautiful.

Only a couple of thoughts:

It is appropriate, in the ordinary course of things for the elders and Sunday School teachers to teach on this.

It is especially appropriate for mature and godly women to privately admonish other women in this regard- that can be done in many ways, including modeling modesty.

If an older woman sees a young woman carelessly and provocatively dressed, she can if there is a relationship established, quietly admonish the younger lady. This is quite appropriate (and even encouraged in scripture, as per Titus 2).

This is not the focus of the church, nor of fellowship, only an incidental part of it, so don't overdo it. There are a lot of tastes and preferences involved. I would not expect a session to be unduly focused on this beyond teaching it in the ordinary course of teaching godly living and exhorting others to live that way.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

This guy very strongly believes that attitude is more important than dress...both men and women should carry a modest and sober attitude.

Both men and women should be considerate of others when they dress in the morning whether they wear an orange shirt with green pants or a glistening tank top.

I saw a fellow the other week walk into church with his shirt unbuttoned down the 3rd or 4th button, exposing his oiled chest. I'd say that would be an example of male immodesty. Female immodesty for me would be a diving neckline. On the other hand many are not bothered by it, and in Edwardian England, a lot more above the waist was exposed than today and it was considered normal (based on my limited exposure to BBC classics).

__________________
Jeremy Bailey
Deacon (Currently, not serving), PCA
Grace Church of Pleasanton (Seeking in San Antonio)
San Antonio, TX

Just to clarify - I didn't mean to imply that modesty is not an issue. In my own experience, I've seen ideas of "modesty" taken to extremes - girls not being allowed to wear dangly earrings, "African" type patterns with bright colors, animal prints etc - so I'm wary of people becoming over focused on female dress. I think its very easy to judge someone on dress even if you don't know their motivations. (I do this all the time) Its also important to remember that something one person might consider flashy another might consider subtle. Taste shouldn't be mistaken with morals. Again not to say that anything goes, I just think this is an area in which we should be extremely cautious.

Scott's thoughts seem very sensible and Biblical to me.

Hahahahaha! Sexy shoes....now that's a new one for me. I'll keep wearing my high heels. I am quite able to set up for church (we don't own our own church so we have to set it up in a community center) in my high heels and seriously I'm not sure what anyone means by wearing them. What I mean by wearing them is, "I'm taking the time to dress up and look nice for church"! Hand me some jeans, t-shirt, and sandals and I would be happy to wear them to church if I thought it was proper. I actually do wear jeans and a nice shirt at times bc I'm too lazy to get dressed up. I also wear fashionable pants (no they are not so loose that they are practically falling off me like some ppl would prefer them to be but are not skin tight either) and blouses. I wear necklaces, bracelets, and rings.....oh and the dreaded perfume too! Sometime during the summer some of my blouses are short sleeve so I show arm skin.............I know, I know I really should have the scarlet letter pinned to my shirt. I guess I get sick and tired of threads like this (not that there have been lots here but on other sites there is) bc it's always women being criticized about what she wears. Women could wear a sack and some men just would never be happy. How about we talk about what the men are wearing? That would be a nice change! How about we talk about how men should learn a little bit of self-control?

Sarah, I sympathize. When I was 13, I was told that my wearing jeans to our evening service was causing men to stumble. (Mind you, they weren't even tight.) It was actually a pretty scarring/traumatizing experience to think that there were guys in the church who couldn't control themselves around a pre-pubescent girl wearing pants. This kind of thing causes me to be really cautious about blaming women for men who can't control themselves. Of course, we must be charitable and do what we can to help our brothers. But they also need to take responsibility for their thoughts

Agreed but one slightly OT question popped to mind: to the elders, do men have responsibility for HOW they react to what a woman is wearing as much as she does for wearing something inappropriate?

__________________

There is a recurring problem in discussions on this subject in that the apostles did not worry about the subjective (e.g. motivations, perceptions, etc), or say that should prevent us from making judgements as has been stated by a few here. Certainly heart issues are underlying their commands, but that does not stop them from condeming dress based on objective criteria.

Would any of you say that the apostle Peter might have been off base in his condemnation of certain forms of dress, because he would not have been able properly to have judged the motivation of the women in his congregation? (of course not, because he was inspired, right?)

Scripture cares quite a bit less about our Western subjectivism than we do, or the perceived unfairness of women being singled out in the Scriptures regarding issues such as dress, public speech, and the like where mention of restriction upon men are almost non-existent. We don't like that, because we are affected by the egalitarian nature of our culture. It causes a lot of fights in our churches, and lots of people get their toes stepped on, but until we submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word, and not to our perceptions and desires, we will continue to have these issues (as well as rallying cries for women in leadership, and other attempts to overturn apostolic teaching) in our denominations and congregations.

Scripture can be a tough pill to swallow where our autonomy is involved, and I do not say that while yet exempting myself from the difficulty.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:47:11 EST-----

This is the sort of redirecting statement about which I have concern. Just because people are responsible for how they react to the option of viewing pornographic materials does not mean that the existence of the pornography is itself any less a violation of biblical ethics.

The reaction and the transgression are two different issues, and the former should not be used to redirect attention from the latter.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

I like what Hokie Airman said about men's modesty. That's definitely a good example. Another is short sleeves to church. Bill simply will not wear short sleeves to church because he thinks it's disrespectful on a man. But that's him.

True, we need to be careful to not put all the emphasis on women's modesty. However, as women we also need to be careful about judging whether or not something causes a man to stumble and complaining about how it's not our fault that men can't control themselves. We are responsible to our brothers to strengthen them in their weakness. If we want them to strengthen us in ours, we have to do the same to them.
Women are not men and we have no concept at all as to how they see a woman's body and what stumbles them.

As women we are not turned on through sight and men are. We don't understand that as they do and we never will. We have to rely on our brothers to tell us and believe them and strengthen them through our godly response to them under the seventh commandment to be pure in their presence. Yes, they are responsible. However, so are we. David was guilty of adultery and murder. However, if Bathsheba had not been purposefully bathing on the rooftop for every passerby to see, it would have averted a lot of tragedy. And perhaps that sword that never left David's house never would have been an issue.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 09:48:58 EST-----

Yes. We are all each responsible. We do what's right and if others don't do what's right, at least we know we are. And that's all we can do.

Adam can you show me where I implied the existence of pornography in that post? Why can't a Christian man have the fruit of Self Control as a virtue rather than mandate skirt length, heel length, how long the sleeves on a shirt should be in a church?

WT...?

Are you really sugesting that if 3 or more people don't like your shoes the elders should visit you?????

let me tell you a story.

2 girls (12/13) attend a local evangelical church for the first time. They meet some of the girls & enjoy the service. They seem especially drawn to the godly young women that they have met.

They and their new friends are chatting and enjoying the evening. A "Godly" woman, a long time member walks up to them. She tells the girls that "they" are very glad to have them "visit" but "if" they come back then they should "dress for church".

Full stop.

They never return, because they do not have the "right clothes".

Shame, on any person that would send away from the living words of Christ, any person that did not meet the dress code. Shame.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Scripture probably doesn't single men out bc it most likely wasn't a problem back then as it is now. No, the men in my church do not suffer from dressing immodestly but there are churches whose men do. So just bc Scripture doesn't single men out and speak to their immodesty doesn't mean that we shouldn't point it out. Also, in Galatians it speaks to everyone that all of us should have self-control. That would include men exercising some self-control over their own thoughts. I agree that women should not wear sexually explicit attire but some men go way overboard on what women can and cannot wear all bc they cannot or do not have any self-control.

It is really good to consider these things like you just did and find out what is appropriate for oneself.

But one cannot force these conclusions on others if they did not come from scripture.

Romans 14

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm short. Period.

__________________
Megan Meisberger
River Hills Community Church - EFCA (yes... same as charliejunfan)
Janesville, WI

Wife of matt.meisberger

<---- Naming my first son after him. My husband was saved while reading Religious Affections.

Hahaha! High five, sista! That's the main reason I wear high heels! Some of my pants are too long without my high heels!

Romans 14 has nothing to do with wearing or doing things because they please us, or in your case, high heels making you taller. What can you do for OTHERS in them? Romans 14 has to do with looking out for the interests of others, not your own, which was exactly my point.

I like to wear high heels to church sometimes because I'm tall. And I like being taller.

Edit: I should clarify that this is tongue in cheek. (Although I definitely understand/agree with Megan and Sarah's point about needing heels to make surer your trousers fit properly).

I have to disagree with you on this one, Toni. What this Scripture is saying is that if God has not made a law against something then another person shouldn't pass judgement on the one who is doing that very thing. I agree that there is other Scripture which tells us not to do things that make our brothers and sisters to stumble. However, there are some brothers and sisters who are so legalistic that anything you do would make them stumble and really they need to take a good hard look at God's commandments instead of making up their own.

Toni, do you think that Romans 14 forbids us from pleasing ourselves or taking joy in our dress? It seems like this might be a matter of liberty (within reason, as I've stated).

Edit: I just wanted to say that I reread the post and Megan's reply, and I think I understand your meaning now.

Do only Christians attend church?

I was quite taken by the thought that men and women should dress in such a way as facilitates their service to Christ within His body. Service and not fashion should be the ultimate criterion of dress sense. At the same time, surely we should be open to the possibility, and even desirability, that unbelieving men and women will attend church services, and we should dress to serve them as equally as the body of Christ. What impression will the unbeliever receive from what he sees amongst those who are attending church services? If this is important to a Christian woman she will not presume on the ability of the men present in the congregation to exercise sexual temperance.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Last summer, on one particularly hot and humid Sunday morning, I remember that there were eight (in a church with maybe 100 people) women with one or two inches of cleavage showing. I remember seeing the first one, then the next, then the next, and then my scientific analytical mind took over and I started counting just out of curiosity. It does not surprise me with the young things who all dress that way anymore, but some of these were 40, 50 or 60.

We had a few this summer that left me staggered. I gotta be careful what I say as this is a public board but one was a leaders wife and her sundress had three inches at least of cleavage hanging out. I was aghast inside and polite outside. We had a few others I won't go into but high heels is nothing.

Let me add that I don't think I am prudish. I wear shorts and tank tops in the summer and normal bathing suits ( one piece) at the beach. I'm not walking around in a long dress all day. But I do think the upper anatomy is meant only for the eyes of a husband. Cleavage should be covered, and not by something that looks like it was spray painted on.

I also think women know exactly what they are doing. Maybe not a 13 year old, but grownups do. There is no doubt in my mind that on some level they are aware of what is motivating them.

I wondered many times if I should say something but always got the sense that the dress is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You wonder why they need male attention so bad; as I recall most of them are married to real nice guys. I think it is lack of intimacy with God ultimately - no man can fill the inner void.

I have to admit that if I walked around like that my husband might not rebuke me, although he'd be honest if I asked him straight out. But he'd probably prefer to avoid conflict over the subject. I suspect a lot of nice guys would rather not say anything and avoid conflict. Is it really up to elders to set the women straight, or is it up to them to maybe ask the husbands to say something to the wife who has it all hanging out? Don't the husbands even care, that guys are going to look at his wife and start thinking something that isn't exactly the latest doctrinal debate?

I was at a church once years ago with about 450 people and one week during the short "free time" before the sermon ( read a scripture, pray, give a "testimony") a woman who worked with teens walked up to the mike and told the women that it was entirely inappropriate to have your cleavage hanging out, it was immodest and sinful. She laid it out graphically for at least 2-3 minutes. She was so earnest and it came out so holy that it was beautiful, not condemning or self righteous. Perhaps this is a subject where older women need to teach the younger, not the elders. I don't know.

Its getting worse every year, that's for sure.

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

I think when you compare how we women dress for church and how unsaved women dress they would be sufficiently impressed. I really don't think us wearing high heels and jewelry is going to leave them with the impression that we are dressing inappropriately.

It seems to me that the first part of Romans 14 that I quoted is talking about judgments, which then leads to the verse 15 onwards are talking about the interests of others, not your own, which you mentioned. I am willing to be proved wrong on this.

I will try to more adequately explain myself. It's good to consider the reasons why one does things. If one finds out that their motivation for wearing a sleeveless top is to make other men think she is attractive, then she is sinning. However, just because that motivation is true for one person does not making it true for another. When she says that, therefore, because she has discovered it is a sin for herself to wear sleeveless shirts, then she assumes it is a sin for all other when to wear sleeveless shirts. I think this is the judgment the beginning of Romans 14 is talking about (I am not saying or implying you have done this. You did admit that it is not necessarily wrong to wear high heels to church). Either way, even if Romans 14 is not the right passage I think that this type of judging is not right. It's legalism.

This is simply the perspective I have to offer. I don't know enough to say anything about what the elders should/shouldn't do.

This may reveal the mindset of a specific age group. Certainly my father's generation would think quite differently.

Amen. I know of one pastor who approached a young girl and told her she was dressed too immodestly and please don't return next week to church like that. He was very nice about it. He didn't tell her she was a gutter slut and was going to hell. Of course it would have been better had a woman admonished her, but it was what it was. And that congregation ran that pastor out of the church for encouraging that girl to obey the seventh commandment. That's absolutely wicked.

This is where you lost me.

__________________
Matt
Reformed Baptist
Christ Community Church

Not to get off topic, but for his own protection, he should have at least had a woman present when he did this. I'm sure this wasn't his intent at all, but approaching a young girl to talk about the modestly of her clothing this could be interpreted as sexual harassment. Pastors and elders must be so careful in situations like this - especially if they are approaching a young girl as opposed to an older woman.

Really, I would be quite content to wear a burka so that I wouldn't have to get dressed up or do my hair or make-up for church. However, I'm thinking that would draw too much attention..........seriously!!!! High heels and jewelry is a problem?? I use to be this legalistic until I realized that it wasn't a sin and that I should actually identify my sins and work on those instead of making up laws that I could live up to on my own. This is even worse than other threads I've been apart of in the past. Well, almost....I did have to defend my wearing of pants on another site. I am glad my pastor and others in my church are not this legalistic.....at least most of the time I'm glad as there are some days when I'm really lazy and don't feel like dressing up....then hand me the burka!

Absolutely. It was definitely not handled correctly.

That is good, and hopefully that will serve as a reminder that we should not be legalistic over this.

Just to clarify for the sake of the subject of this thread, church disciple does not pertain to sins per se, but to scandals, which may or may not include sins. In Acts 15 the elders of the church came to a decision which also seemed good to the Holy Ghost that certain things should be omitted even though they were not sinful in themselves.

I suppose this is why the idea of dress reflecting servanthood appeals to me. It avoids legalism and at the same time takes seriously the demand to deal charitably with all men.

sarah...I read an article by two female missionaries in a muslim nation. They said that in the marketplace men pinch and grope and touch worse than anything you'd ever see in the west. The muslims are crazed with lust and they don't even know what's under that burka, if it is a pretty girl or an 80 year old withered woman. They grab anyway. Disgusting, but the point is, women have to work on clothes and men have to work on lust. You can cover it all up and some guys will still have trouble.

Wow. I am really impressed by the amount of attention I galvanized here. Quick clarification, though. It seems that people are taking my example at face value, so let me clear the air. I do not think that all high heels are wrong or immodest. Like I said in the first post, this area is difficult to diagnose. By allowing you guys to respond--women especially since the post is very much concerned with the decorum of women in the church--I think that there is a lot that needs to be revisited. By all intents and purposes, I think that we can all agree that there is a problem in the church and that it is in desperate need of attention. Can we all agree? Second, What I propose is something similar to what raekwon suggests:
The method is just as important as the manner which the woman's dress (=decorum). I don't think that every instance of "immodesty" is similar in all cases; and I believe this is the reason why this is difficult to diagnose. Ultimately, I think that if there's an overwhelming problem, then I definitely think that the elders should be apprised of the situation. I will post more responses as I will read all your entries.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:09:30 EST-----

OK. It could possibly be due to my rhetorical style. Let me see if I can clarify this point for you. In my debate with those who hold what I call a "cavalier" approach, I set forth their argument in the first two headings or subheads. A rough paraphrase would run like this: No one, even elders, should have the right to tell its member how to dress or correct their dress. If someone has an issue with a sister in the church, it is a personal sin and should be treated (=medical verb or a practical form of "treatment," e.g., I have a headache, therefore you should take an aspirin) personally. I granted that point only to a certain degree; and I even mentioned that there is a disparity in diagnosing this problem. It isn't easy; it is a hard issue as there are different definitions of "modesty." Hope that helps.

If a heel broke, she'd do more than stumble, she would go straight to the ground with an injured ankle. Sorry, couldn't resist.






Okay, back to the serious discussion.

__________________
soli Deo gloria!
~Nicholas~ Ordained Pastor
Member, Fulton PCA; GPTS Student
Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees. -Luther-
There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.
-Francis Schaeffer-

Some of the high heels I've seen I can't understand how women can walk in them, and I'd think they would be much more prone to stumbling (and the same can be said for platform shoes).

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:14:53 EST-----

Sorry, I didn't see you caught the same funny I did!

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.