Thread: Dress codes and Church Discipline

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Montanablue

I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.

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-----

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by Montanablue

I can't understand why footwear would cause someone to stumble.

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






Okay, back to the serious discussion.

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

I kind of asked for this with my phrasing... I'm surprised it took so long for someone to catch it!

Originally Posted by Montanablue

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

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).

Again, I would recommend that you read my latest responses. I never said that wearing high-heels is bad. I do, however, object to the cavalier attitude that some sisters take in their manner of dress. I happen to like girls in high-heels. I think it exemplifies femininity. But there are those other heels that portray a very sumptuous repertoire in physical appearance. And that is the problem that I am raising. There is nothing inherently evil about wearing them. However, I think that women should be mindful as my subheads A-B under number two in my original post suggests.

-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11:24:59 EST-----

Originally Posted by OPC'n

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

No. I don't think it is inappropriate. You should read the latest response. I think it answers that question in detail.

Julio, I think I did misunderstand your post. You seemed to be criticizing women who wore heels. I'm glad to see that's not the case.

I think the issue goes far beyond certain garments or accessories and into attitudes. As to cavalier attitudes, as I said, my comment about liking to wear high heels because I am tall was made in jest. (Although I do wear heels - I view them as a more formal type of footwear and flats as less formal and a little less feminine - but that's another discussion for another time)

I'm certainly not suggesting that women be cavalier (IN fact, I don't think anyone is suggesting that). On the other hand, we cannot make women responsible for every man that may stumble.

The funny aside, I'd have to say that there isn't much in the way of objective criteria for saying what is or what is not modest. If you think of tribal women in places that are hot nearly all the time, it would be normal for them to go around topless and it would not be considered "sexy". If a woman here did the same, they would likely be arrested.

What I'm getting at is cultural norm. If wearing a loincloth is the cultural norm, then it would not be considered immodest. If wearing a burka was a cultural norm, then having ankles uncovered would be considered immodest. The reaction of men to what is different is more to do with what is common verses what is commanded.

Clothing: you must wear some.

The only reason I have for saying this is that after the fall (if we were innocent, we would not need clothing) all of mankind is aware of our nakedness, and it was God that provided clothing (more than fig leaves) for Adam and Eve. We are not told what is modest or not in scripture, and therefore I would tend to think it is heart attitude (and cultural norms) that control.

I would not want my wife or daughters to show up in church in thong bikinis, but I would not want them to feel like they had to wear a burka either.

Originally Posted by Scott1

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.

I can see where your logic is going. So would you suggest that the women in the church should have some kind of sponsored study by the church on being a godly woman and perhaps a future godly wife? I would like that to happen. I do think, though, that generally, the elders should admonish the church in proper church order. It doesn't mean that they should draw up a codex in what women are to wear. I think that breaches so many ethical boundaries. I would, at that point, just refer people to their creeds. One example was posted in the original post (HC 85). But at the same time, a local body will ultimately have to govern itself and follow the Scriptures as best as they could. This is where good sound judgment of the pastorate and the session should be noted and practiced.

I would have to say that we should "ALL" search our motivation for how we dress, whether in worship, or in the work place, or even to the market. God has called us as "Christians" to a higher standard than that of the world. However, I am not saying we should become legalistic, or extreme about it.
I do think we should be intentional about how we present ourselves to the world, but more importantly before God.
I may look at things somewhat different than others, both here and abroad, but I think about my appearance before the Lord even outside of Church. Again, I am not saying one should have to dress in a feed sack(women), or in coveralls(men), but to consider the intention of our heart.

Originally Posted by Montanablue

Julio, I think I did misunderstand your post. You seemed to be criticizing women who wore heels. I'm glad to see that's not the case.

I think the issue goes far beyond certain garments or accessories and into attitudes. As to cavalier attitudes, as I said, my comment about liking to wear high heels because I am tall was made in jest. (Although I do wear heels - I view them as a more formal type of footwear and flats as less formal and a little less feminine - but that's another discussion for another time)

I'm certainly not suggesting that women be cavalier (IN fact, I don't think anyone is suggesting that). On the other hand, we cannot make women responsible for every man that may stumble.

I respect your candor. See, this is exactly what I was aiming for. There are some people, however, that would elicit a very cavalier approach. For instance, the argument would run like this: It is his personal problem, therefore I don't need to appease everyone. There are so many logical inconsistencies in this statement that I don't think I really need to analyze it, do I? What I responded to her (I will leave her unnamed) was this: if there is a significant number of men in the church who stumble at her sight--be that whatever her intentions are in her dress--I think at that point there is a problem. I used a narrative to illustrate that point. I said that if you are walking down the street and you smelled smoke (maybe they saw smoke) and they heard sirens, then there is a fair assumption via the use of induction, that there is a fire. The fact that there are more than three (any number above the norm really) people who struggle in a given church is clearly an instance of trouble. All I am saying is that there is a problem and perhaps someone needs to mention it. I would first suggest that a mature sister in the church should talk to the offending (I'm using that term loosely) sister, lest the pastors be apprised and deal with it individually. I don't think it needs to come to that. After all, unity in the church is a primary concern, is it not?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.

Brian,

I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.

The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.

Originally Posted by Archlute

I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.

The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.

Well noted, Adam.

Cultural standards should be framed according to the precept to honour father and mother. Those in positions of responsibility set the standards. Sadly we are about to face a third generation which abdicates parental responsibility, which means the cultural standards can only slip further.

Originally Posted by calgal

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?

Of course! But the Bible does specifically speak to the issue of female modesty in dress, likely because of the weaknesses of men. Our society has become increasingly sexualized and I am sometimes apalled at what Christian women will wear and how equally clueless they are as to its effect on men.

As an aside, no one seems to have commented on the fact that the brother who began this thread is clearly from a different culture. Modesty is to some extent driven by culture, which may have something to do with why he mentioned shoes.

Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.

Brian,

I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.

The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.

Okay, so were in scripture are the objective moral standards of dress? I cannot find them.

God's word is our only infallible standard of faith and life (and more, cf WCF chapter 1) and so we should find within its pages those things which are explicitly expressed or through good and necessary conclusion can be deduced. Length of dress (or even a dress as opposed to pants), height of heels, and many other things we do not find.

What we do find is a command to be modest. We find commands to self-control. We find commands to love one another. I may be mistaken, but I don't know as there is a command to women to cover their breasts (though I'm not advocating for topless woman!) If it can be concluded by necessary deduction from scripture, then I'm willing to hear the syllogisms and detachments that force the conclusion. I just have never seen them presented other than from a cultural context, which is not objective, but subjective.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

I believe this hits the nail on the head. What one culture thinks immodest, another will think modest.

Brian,

I don't think that is what he was getting at, as much as condemning the drift away from a conservative biblical understanding that was held by a previous generation.

The problem with the statement that you made is a common one in our day, it presents no fixed moral standard, but one that shifts according the dictates of culture. Even cultures will be judged in accordance with God's word and character, and just because a particular culture does not see a thing as immodest does not make it chaste in God's eyes.

I think you would have to define what you think is immodest. Is it pants, high heels, jewelry, etc? I know that I once went to a Baptist church and all the women were wearing skirts down to their ankles....I was wearing pants bc I didn't know that I was suppose to wear a skirt down to my ankles....I don't even have one and never will. So they clearly felt that pants or even shorter skirts were immodest. Is this your thinking?

Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.

This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.

Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.

I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.

This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.

Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.

I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.

How am I suppose to know how weak some men are? I don't wear plunging necklines, I don't wear high hemlines bc I don't wear dresses, I wear pants which might be considered clingy just as pants cling to men. So am I suppose to wear the ankle length skirt just to cover my bases in not making some men stumble? Do not those same men have the need to develop self-control?

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Sarah, as far as I am concerned if a women's dress distracts me from worshipping Christ we both have a problem.

Perhaps, though some men might have a problem regardless of what is worn.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

This thread has increasingly distressed me because the majority of women commenting seem not to care a whit about the moral struggles of their brothers in the Lord. What they seem to care about is what they want to wear.

If the attitude of a woman is what you are saying, then it is a problem. It is also a problem if men not only are tempted, but sin.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Romans 14 has been batted around. Remember Paul taught that we should limit our liberty out of love for God's people.

I love my wife with all my heart but ladies, don't place a stumbling block in front of me with clingy clothes, high hemlines, and low necklines no matter how fashionable. I don't want to lust in my heart as I stand before God's people to preach. It is easier to do than you could possibly imagine.

Agreed. Both men have an obligation to control their thoughts, and women have an obligation to show Christian love to their brothers within the church. Christian love does not tell someone that arrives at your house that is a teetotaler because of conscience that he should be able to drink because it is perfectly okay and serve wine with a meal (when one knows the person has scruples against drinking).

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.

You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Originally Posted by calgal

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?

Of course! But the Bible does specifically speak to the issue of female modesty in dress, likely because of the weaknesses of men. Our society has become increasingly sexualized and I am sometimes apalled at what Christian women will wear and how equally clueless they are as to its effect on men.

As an aside, no one seems to have commented on the fact that the brother who began this thread is clearly from a different culture. Modesty is to some extent driven by culture, which may have something to do with why he mentioned shoes.

Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.

It is very interesting that you mentioned the generational divide. You're right. I am from a different generation. I do agree that different generations will deal with different denotations of what constitutes "modest apparel." However, I do think that there is a trans culture/generational divide that would allow for some ethical commentary on the situation. I do think that a heel that accentuates too much of the female figure does exhibit an attitude of mutiny. It might not be explicit mutiny, but considering the generational divide, I think that the influences that are imbued in the female who wears these heels--again, I'm using that example loosely--should consider her presuppositions about what she wears. Again I would refer her to my rebuttal and subheads in the original post.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.

You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.

I never said it was a sin and I thought I was making it clear that those were just thoughts I had. However, the response of the woman after being confronted about something such as heels can be sinful.
There is a time for everything and I was expressing that a Lord's Day service in my opinion is not the place to wear heals. I may not be able to see your heals and that is irrelevant. Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Ladies, adorn yourselves with godliness. The guys will still notice.

This is absolutely true of the guys that a godly woman would want to attract. I know for a fact that a scantily clad woman would never have become a candidate for marriage. While the temptation to lust might be there, I would not want to befriend a woman that was always "on the edge" of cultural modesty.

Also, the main issue at hand is "the underlying attitude of certain Christians that really bothers me. It is cavalier and frankly too bombastically clothed in mutiny." as jmartinez has expressed. Heels just happened to be the issue we were discussing with another Christian we know. Jmartinez is my brother-in-law by the way and I am part of the reason this conversation came up. haha forgot to mention that.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.

You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.

I would refer you to my original post for a Biblical defense of my thesis. Your tag name seems to suggest that you're with the OPC. I would refer you to your creed on church discipline as a basis for the Biblical defense you are looking for:

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation [the same word for conduct]), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church [a key clause], they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. . ." WCF 20.4.

Ergo, if the church finds fault, then you are duty bound by reasonable conclusions to submit to the church and its censures. The Biblical bases is inherently found within the text of your confession. To deny that is to deny the tradition of which you belong and its Biblical corollaries. I hope that wasn't too harsh, but this issue needs to be resolved. Again, it isn't about the heels per se, but the underlying attitude that some women have.

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

This is the best statement on this thread I've read yet. I was beginning to feel horrible about how I dress! Thank you, Brian!

Originally Posted by jmartinez83

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Hi everyone, this is my first post woo hoo! Anyway, my wife and I were just talking about this and I would have to agree with Knoxienne on the heels issue. I believe that a godly woman in heels is drawing unnecessary attention to herself and not in keeping with a gentle and quiet spirit. Not all heals obviously and there is a time and place for them i.e. with a wedding dress or some formal gown. But I have always thought that a large majority of them come across to me as an attempt to be sexy. You hear the term often when someone complements particular heels. "Sexy" is not something a woman attending a Lords day service should be concerned with. But those were my thoughts when speaking with my wife...I thought I was just a bigot haha.

You can't even see my high heeled shoes except for the toes of them bc I wear pants so I don't see how your theory could hold up. I think this is your own opinion and not based on Scripture. If high heels are sinful, then they shouldn't be worn with anything. You can't decide when all women should and shouldn't wear high heels unless you have Scriptural support.

I would refer you to my original post for a Biblical defense of my thesis. Your tag name seems to suggest that you're with the OPC. I would refer you to your creed on church discipline as a basis for the Biblical defense you are looking for:

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation [the same word for conduct]), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church [a key clause], they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. . ." WCF 20.4.

Ergo, if the church finds fault, then you are duty bound by reasonable conclusions to submit to the church and its censures. The Biblical bases is inherently found within the text of your confession. To deny that is to deny the tradition of which you belong and its Biblical corollaries. I hope that wasn't too harsh, but this issue needs to be resolved. Again, it isn't about the heels per se, but the underlying attitude that some women have.

Absolutely. Yet this would mean that the church would have to act with love, and act according to knowledge. The process is not a lot different between the OPC and PCA in this regard (Matt. 18) and it would require investigation, and the accused would have to be brought up on charges that stem from scripture. I certainly would support my session if they came to me with what is lawful use of the authority they possess. I would certainly accept instruction from them. I would want their instruction (and they would certainly provide) a Biblical basis for the need for change in behavior.

That said, I doubt if I wear something a little different to church that the session would take note unless what was worn "stands out" from the culture in which we live.

Please note ... I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that we all must submit to Biblical authority. If I came to church wearing a shirt open to the navel, I would expect I would be counselled about the appropriateness of the clothing. What I would not expect is to be told not to wear what is common in my culture.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

That depends. Im not talking about some strange man that happens to have a problem with curly hair and confronts a woman. This is obviously a much larger issue than just some guy that happens to be affected by heels. This thread is already two pages long which means there is mixed feelings on the issue. Once again it is the attitude and response of the woman in question that is the issue. If it is a significant problem and she is confronted it is her responsibility to abstain from whatever practice is causing others to stumble.

-----Added 10/2/2009 at 01:47:51 EST-----

Let me add this. This mention of heels in this forum at little to do with what was said. He gave heels as an example because that was the topic of discussion when a "cavalier" response was made. In our situation the heels were an issue and that of vanity and unnecessary attention. There may be no issue at all with anyone else involved in this forum but it was for us. So really we should be discussing the appropriate actions of individuals confronted by others within the church and not heels.

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

That depends. Im not talking about some strange man that happens to have a problem with curly hair and confronts a woman. This is obviously a much larger issue than just some guy that happens to be affected by heels. This thread is already two pages long which means there is mixed feelings on the issue. Once again it is the attitude and response of the woman in question that is the issue. If it is a significant problem and she is confronted it is her responsibility to abstain from whatever practice is causing others to stumble.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this. If my whole church saw a problem with how I dressed, I would want to change my dress code.....sheer embarrassment would lead me to that change. I would hope that they would base it off of Scripture and not just bc one or two men had a problem with how I dress and want to see all women in long skirts.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Sean Strupp

Many heals can be seen and if it stumbles a man or woman, it is to be abstained from. But it is also their responsibility of the individual stumbled by your dress to call it to your attention. At that point the ball is in your court and it is at that point that sin can be present.

I would say this is contrary to the scripture, and certainly to the WCF.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

If we obey such commands out of conscience, then we betray liberty. If we have a total disregard for our brother, that is also wrong.

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

OK there needs to be some clarification. I don't think Sean is advocating an autonomous judgment of individual ills. If that were the case, then everyone would be lopping off heads from all quarters. Second, I think there is a basic assumption that what Sean is setting forth is "contrary to the Word," as the WCF says. Clearly we need to protect liberty of conscience:

So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also

But let's not forget that Peter also admonishes us not to use our liberty as a cloak for ills and vices. That is why I mentioned, in an earlier post, that the Heidelberg Catechism question 85 suggests that it be done firstly in private:

when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished. . . (HC 85).

My aim in this post isn't to defend an individual, by the way. I am really interested in church discipline, and the issues raised in my home really caused concern. So I did a quick summary of the arguments and played with the logic for a bit. I took note of my Biblical presuppositions and my culture's presuppositions. Our ideas and notions of beauty really need to be examined personally. However, all I can do it recommend because this issue isn't clear-cut. It is very difficult to diagnose and there is a morass of opinions out there, even among the faithful.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

This is absolutely true of the guys that a godly woman would want to attract. I know for a fact that a scantily clad woman would never have become a candidate for marriage. While the temptation to lust might be there, I would not want to befriend a woman that was always "on the edge" of cultural modesty.

I agree 100%. The temptress is intriguing and tempting in the flesh but it's because she is seen as a tool and a means of worldly pleasure. She definitely isn't given any attention because she is respected or honored. For a wife, godliness is the determining factor. A girl who loves Christ more than she loves any man is ravishingly attractive.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

If someone has trouble with a woman wearing a pair of pants (not skin tight, not shorts, but just a regular pants suit), they might need to be instructed in self-control more than the woman told to change. Instruction needs to be to both men and women. Men should discipline their minds; women should use digression in clothing. If both are doing what ought to be, there won't be a problem. Either not following the law of love will be a cause of stumbling.

Good words.

Originally Posted by jmartinez83

Can we all agree?

This question, no matter the point behind it, should always be answered 'no'. In a debate, it is manipulative, and usually a sign that a trap is being set.

So until all of your terms are defined, and I understand where you are trying to go (not where you are coming from), I'll not cede any point.

Certainly, if the initial debate had just been modesty in the church, my initial reaction would have been quite different. But since I now know how 'modesty' is being defined, I have to wonder how you would define other terms, and what the issues really are.

To summarize some of the very good points up thread:

It might be the man's problem, rather than the woman's that needs to be most urgently addressed. (Guys who spend time in church obsessing on women's feet probably need help.)

It may be a diaconal issue - does the woman have/ can she afford more suitable attire.

It may be an educational issue - does an older woman (at least older in the faith) need to come along side her and teach her what appropriate attire is? Is proper attire being modeled by such women?

"Can we all agree" that ONLY when these three have been worked through should the session get formally involved? And if the woman is married (or unemancipated) the process should also involve her husband or father?

Edward has a good summary of the biblical issues involved.

Remember also, this sin problem is not new, nor is it so subjective it cannot be obeyed outwardly and with a right heart inwardly.

No Christian is called to live as an island unto themselves, but unto an orientation toward the good of his neighbor, and the honor and glory of God.

If a woman is physically beautiful for a time, for a long time, that's the purpose- to use that gift to the honor and glory of her God.

And if she is also inwardly beautiful, that is better and may we all seek to understand and value that, because that is God's will for us.

That doesn't come "naturally"- that's why we need God's Word made flesh, our Savior.

1 Timothy 2:9

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

What I would not expect is to be told not to wear what is common in my culture.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by jmartinez83

Can we all agree?

This question, no matter the point behind it, should always be answered 'no'. In a debate, it is manipulative, and usually a sign that a trap is being set.

So until all of your terms are defined, and I understand where you are trying to go (not where you are coming from), I'll not cede any point.

Certainly, if the initial debate had just been modesty in the church, my initial reaction would have been quite different. But since I now know how 'modesty' is being defined, I have to wonder how you would define other terms, and what the issues really are.

To summarize some of the very good points up thread:

It might be the man's problem, rather than the woman's that needs to be most urgently addressed. (Guys who spend time in church obsessing on women's feet probably need help.)

It may be a diaconal issue - does the woman have/ can she afford more suitable attire.

It may be an educational issue - does an older woman (at least older in the faith) need to come along side her and teach her what appropriate attire is? Is proper attire being modeled by such women?

"Can we all agree" that ONLY when these three have been worked through should the session get formally involved? And if the woman is married (or unemancipated) the process should also involve her husband or father?

This is the sort of response that I have received from the opposite side that I am warning about. There can never be a simple answer, namely because there is such a cultural divide on the term "modesty." I think I've made that point incontrovertibly. Second, the reason I asked that question isn't for a trap. The problem in the church isn't innocuous, so I don't have time to play a logical game. Paul himself appends this kind of thinking as sinful and should be avoided (1 Timothy 6:3-4). This sort of accusation, personally, I find to be unfounded.

Edward mentions the sinful problems men have with the women's dress, be that heels or whatnot. I already covered that. I agreed with subsequent posts on the need for men to deal with their sin(s). What I suggest is not a denotative definition of modesty but a way in which the church censures and/or corrects a female who clearly is offending a significant amount of men in the church. Following an inductive method, I think if there is a good amount of men who find a woman's wear offensive would suggest that there is a problem, similar to my illustration about fires and sirens. Granted there is a problem in the church, I found that beginning with the problem would help resolve the issue. That is the reason I asked that basic question, "Can we all agree?" It wouldn't be personally advantageous to ignore the smell of fire and the sound of the sirens when there is a fire close by.

Originally Posted by Montanablue

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

That would be traumatizing!!!!

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

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.
Here is a good example of liberty. I don't know of any other man who thinks that short sleeves on a man is disrespectful! So thankfully Bill has the liberty to wear long sleeves, even in summer, and other men have the liberty to wear polos, even in winter.
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.
I totally agree!!
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. I don't think this is completely true...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.
I don't know for sure that Bathsheba was guilty of something. Is that in the Bible? If I were on my roof and someone saw me, he'd have to be trying very, very hard to do so. (I may be wrong, and Bathsheba's guilt may be clear, I just don't remember that!)

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

Originally Posted by calgal

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

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.
I don't wear heels very often, mostly because I find myself in a state of near-eternal pregnancy. But I have worn heels and the reasons for doing so were to either fit into my long pants (I'm only a little taller than our nurse, sarah) or to match a dress. On the contrary, I have been criticized (not to my face, thankfully!) about wearing flipflops to church, even though they were solid black, not flashy, not high, and very plain. What is a girl to do??

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.
Word.

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?

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.

As to the OP, I think the scenario has a problem. How would a man establish if there were three or more of him bothered by a woman's dress? I assume that would mean that they speak about it together, and I think that could lead to more sin than the woman's attire.

I think, like Matthew 18, if a man is seriously grieved by a woman's attire, he should ask his wife to speak to her. Or his mother, if he is young, or a pastor, who can ask his wife, if he is single. (I know this isn't exactly Matthew 18, but I think it would be wrong for a man to speak directly to someone who isn't his wife.)

I don't know if this would work in the real world, but I think a man would be able to speak to the lady's husband or father, if her immodesty was a problem.

My husband would kill me before he let me wear anything immodest. But he has no problem with me wearing things that express my personality or fashion sense--be it heels (not likely!) or fun dresses, or anything else that is based on personal preference.

As Barnhouse once said, some women can be immodest in three dresses and two mink coats, while godly women will look modest even when forced out of their homes in their night clothes by a fire.

It's a heart issue, and completely unrelated to men's self-control, which is an entirely different subject.

Consider, before criticizing them, that these clothes may be the only change they have beside work clothes and they were donated/gifted to them.

Yes, but when they are not, what is the motivation for dressing like a tart? ESPECIALLY married women. Who are they trying to attract? Honestly - what is the motivation for short skirts and heels on a 50 year old woman, even if she looks good in it? Try and find a godly answer there, and "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. This goes doubly true for men, as they are to provide headship and leadership in the home. If I wax my chest and wear open shirts to worship, I hope the elders will tackle me on the way in and give me the talking to I deserve.

One other thing - I have seen that many churches mandate dress codes because their congregations conform themselves to the world first and foremost in their dress. I know of one FRC church in our area here that mandated measurements for wedding dresses. Over the top? Some may think so, but girls were showing up with shorter and shorter skirts and lower and lower necklines, so the church was forced to do something. If people would have sobriety of mind in these issues instead of reading 'Vogue' and 'Bride Today' or what have you, then there would be no need for these discussions.

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.

Dress codes are not necessarily legalism.

What I'm getting at is cultural norm. If wearing a loincloth is the cultural norm, then it would not be considered immodest. If wearing a burka was a cultural norm, then having ankles uncovered would be considered immodest. The reaction of men to what is different is more to do with what is common verses what is commanded.

But look at what our culture now considers the 'norm'. This is an extremely dangerous position, IMHO.

Just want to add to the conversation...

Male cleavage, front and back is immodest too!

If I wax my chest and wear open shirts to worship, I hope the elders will tackle me on the way in and give me the talking to I deserve.

Um, yeah...I've seen a fellow try to this...since I'm still a visitor at my church, I can only hope he was too?

Also, if the ladies find they have two add'l cheeks to powder, then they're probably being a bit immodest no matter what their countenance/attitude is.

Also, I'd say that leather high-heeled boots that come up to the thigh would be immodest.

Male cleavage, front and back is immodest too!

Plumbers, stay home!

There is plenty of room for whitewashed tombs here as well. I have seen (in a rather conservative church) a young lady with high-heeled leather boots to the knee, a short tight skirt, and tight blouse and vest. BUT she was wearing a headcovering, so all was well. :sigh:

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart."

While dress codes are useful in certain situations (schools, weddings in churches, work), there is no place for them in church services, IMHO. I have to go along with those who suggest that if a communicant member of a church is consisently dressing inappropriately, then someone (preferrably one of the same gender and a good example) should go to that person privately and discuss it.

Modest dress is a matter of the heart. This needs to be taught as a primary issue. That is why I Peter says that a woman should be adorning the inner person of the heart. If the inner adorning is appropriate, it will manifest itself in the outward appearance.

I will end my comments with this story. Several years ago, I walked into the bookstore of a well-known christian university which has very high dress standards for the women. I walked down one of the book aisles and saw a woman looking at a book. For the sake of the men reading this, I won't describe the clothing she was wearing, but it was very inappropriate. The first thought that crossed my mind was "how did that woman get on this campus dressed like that?" (She had obviously spent a lot of time arriving at that look) It wasn't until I scanned her clothing a second time that I realized she hadn't broken one dress code rule. Just about that time the woman looked up and I realized it was the wife of the president of the university!