Dress codes and Church Discipline

Megan Mozart · #81 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Quote:

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.

I don't know exactly what you mean by a "short" skirt. If you are talking about a miniskirt, that is probably fine. But if it just means above the knees...

Rom 14:3-4 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's alright if you don't like a short skirt and heels. If it's causing a multitude of men to stumble, it might be bad. But the part that is troubling me is you ask "What is the motivation?" And you say, "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. Are you given the ability to know she is lying? Do you really know enough to know that her motives are not appropriate simply because you don't like her dress?

Rom 14:5 "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Go ahead and have your opinion, but don't hold the other person to it if it's not spelled out in scripture.

Peace and blessings, brother.

It has also been said that some in this thread are defending their dress because they want just men to be responsible and they want to be able to wear whatever they want. I don't like this because you don't know their heart and their motivations.

I don't know the right amount of responsibility men or women should have in this, I'm not even touching that, so please don't assume that I am trying to justify being able to wear whatever I want including immodest things. I am just trying to guard against legalism by sharing what I am convinced Romans 14 is saying and I think we need to pay more attention to it. I don't think I'm

because I think I can rightfully infer from some posts that there is some legalism going on. If not, then I want to be cautious and say it anyway, because Romans 14 is worth mentioning in a discussion of this topic if it is in God's word.

However, I will try not to be the legalism police anymore, though it is hard because to me it is so clearly spoken against in this passage and I wish more attention was being paid to it.

Honor · #82 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 11:14 AM

I want to chime in....
I wear heels (I'm five foot flat and my husband is 6ft2) except when I'm pregnant.

Now if a man comes into church and is looking around and has a problem with what a woman wears on her feet or is noticing his womans tight pants or some cleavage peaking though I would ask: where is this mans focus? Should he not prepare his heart for worship before hand and then when he comes into the house of the Lord he should be more fixated on that fact than on what ANYONE around him is wearing. Plus if a man is stumbling (which is a nice way of saying he's lusting) after a woman in his church because of her clothes Heaven help him if he goes to Walmart, the gas station or any other public place. It doesn't matter if the female is a christian or not... if she is dressed in any way and the man lusts it's his sin. Now christian women are to be dressed modestly and since the Bible clearly is vague on the details of that, I think it should be a matter of the girl conscience and not the man low self control. Some would say Spagetti straps are not modest, or high heels or pants that aren't made of tents. However if you look around you you will see these things just by walking out your front door. It says in the Bible are are to flee every time of sin are you to become a hermit in your house? NO, you are to guard your mind, turn your eyes and try to live at peace with everyone. If a woman were to try to dress to everyones ideal of modesty she would never make a single clothing purchase, because trust me, some guy at some time is going to look at her with lust in his heart. It's threads like these that make women like us second guess everything we own. thus making it ten times longer for me to get dressed in the morning. and that is a shame.

I would also like to add that of course a woman dresses "that way" because it looks good. and when I say "that way" I mean any way from a woman who prides herself on always being modest to the girl who comes in the church from "night shift" I have never heard a woman say "there I look butt ugly, lets go''

Tripel · #83 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 11:28 AM

Great post Jessica. I wholeheartedly agree.

kvanlaan · #84 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

I don't know exactly what you mean by a "short" skirt. If you are talking about a miniskirt, that is probably fine. But if it just means above the knees...

Rom 14:3-4 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's alright if you don't like a short skirt and heels. If it's causing a multitude of men to stumble, it might be bad. But the part that is troubling me is you ask "What is the motivation?" And you say, "I like the way it looks" doesn't wash. Are you given the ability to know she is lying? Do you really know enough to know that her motives are not appropriate simply because you don't like her dress?

Rom 14:5 "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Go ahead and have your opinion, but don't hold the other person to it if it's not spelled out in scripture.

Peace and blessings, brother.

It is not spelled out that women should cover their breasts, it is not spelled out that women should not wear a thong in public, it is not spelled out that men may cavort in a speedo on the street either. BUT I would be hard pressed to say that these are mere issues of conscience. If someone is 'fully convinced in [their] own mind' that there is nothing wrong with that sort of dress, then they need to pick up a commentary and read it for what it really means.

Proverbs 14:12 - There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Hence I would like the motivation for the dress style.

**py3ak** · #85 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 12:02 PM

MODERATOR

Thread closed.

I don't think this kind of conversation is likely to be productive until participants consistently distinguish between the various questions that arise, such as:
What is modest clothing? (With its subsidiary questions)
What is appropriate clothing for church? (With its subsidiary questions)

Perhaps more important is to distinguish between other questions:
How should women dress?
What is a man's responsibility when a woman doesn't dress appropriately?
What is a woman's responsibility when a man inappropriately tells her that he doesn't appreciate her clothing?
How should church leadership handle these clothing-related disputes?
Etc., etc., etc.

But most importantly of all, the problem will not be resolved until people learn to address their own sins without blaming other people for what falls in your area of responsibility. Women shouldn't sit around thinking about what creeps men are. Men shouldn't sit around thinking about how carelessly provocative women are. In my own view, that is the fundamental point that church leadership should address, because no progress can be made until I take responsibility for myself. We all have a tendency to engage in eye surgery when the beams are so thickly entrenched in our own corneas that we're often mistaken for hat stands. That is where you can make a contribution to the church's problem in this area.

/MODERATOR

***Semper Fidelis*** · #86 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 12:47 PM

I know Ruben has closed this thread but wanted to make a few general observations about discipleship, Christian sanctification, and Pastoral work.

I saw this thread last night and it had trouble written all over it and I knew where it was going to head. I believe the problem was not really posed properly. It's not to say that a problem does not exist but that the way to address problems is not simply to jump to discipline in a matter.

Everyone of us needs to be discipled. While this requires the application of discipline, that discipline takes many forms. I think the key consideration when you are considering the Church of Christ is that all in the Church should be set on the priority that we are to strive together and to spur one another on to love and good works. We ought to see to it that none fall behind. Too often our default setting is to think of ourselves and consider other's falling behind to be "their problem". I'm coming to Church, after all, so that I can be fed. If others aren't getting it done then they need to figure out how to get with an Elder so they can keep up. I think this is fundamentally flawed and ignores direct teaching of the Scriptures to the contrary.

It's interesting that I was just last night listening to Ligon Duncan preaching on the Sermon on the Mount where Ligon Duncan noted the following:

Quote:

I’m going to suggest to you that in this passage, Jesus is concerned to reset a default setting for all of His disciples that is deeply ingrained in every one of us. We may think of ourselves as basically loving people, basically nice people. But the fact of the matter is, most of the time that we are loving, we are loving those who love us. Now that can be a challenge because those who love you can hurt you. Those who are close to you can hurt you. But Jesus is especially talking about how we deal with those who do not love us, who really don’t have anything to offer us, and sometimes those who have our positive injury in mind in their actions and their intentions. He is talking about how we are to respond to those who do not love us, and in so doing, He is talking about changing our default settings. Now, in what I’m about to say, there are going to be 674 questions that pop into your mind – “But does it apply here? But does it apply here? But do you always have to do that? But do you always have to do this?” Let me just say very quickly, Jesus is talking about your default setting - what is going to be the standard, believing Christian response to those who do not love you. He is not covering every circumstance of life with this one particular dictum....

...But I also know this my friends, when we hear hard and demanding words from Jesus Christ, our temptation is the same temptation from that of the Pharisees. You know what the Pharisees always did? This was always their first question – “When do I not have to obey God’s law? What are the exceptions?” The Pharisees, and you and me, are always looking for loopholes. “But Lord, when do I not have to obey this principle?” Jesus is talking about resetting our default setting so that when we are dealing with those who are unloving and unkind, those who have no claim on our affection and who do not evoke our delight, and some of whom actually seek our harm, He is wanting to reset our default setting so we respond to them in a particular way.

And what He says is nothing short of breathtaking. This is what He says – “Love your…” and you’re waiting for “neighbor” to come out of His mouth, but that’s not what He says. He says, “Love your enemies.” Jesus is saying that His disciples will love and be merciful to those who do not love and are not merciful to them. Do you hear that exhortation? Love and be merciful to those who don’t love you and aren’t merciful to you and from whom you have nothing to gain. This is a radical, radical command, and the very standard of it separates His people from the world.

Notice what Jesus says, “Even sinners love those who love them, but My disciples are going to be different. They are going to love even those who don’t love them. They are going to give to even those who can’t give back to them. And they are going to seek the best interest of even those who aren’t seeking their best interest because they’re Mine.”

Jesus was speaking about our enemies. How much more, then, does it apply to those who are Baptized into Christ and demand our toil to see it that none falls behind?

I want to suggest a couple of things:

1. Is our concern about other's dress related solely to the fact that their dress may cause us to sin or are we actually concerned about their growth in grace? Perhaps they might still be spiritually immature and need to better understand how/why modesty has a virtue that glorifies God. Perhaps they may be still carnally minded and our concern would be much deeper that they understand the Gospel.

2. Does the fact that others might be struggling with lust and temptation concern us? Is this something that only the Elders need to help them with?

I'm not suggesting an easy prescription for the problem but it helps if we first understand what the Church of Christ is about and what we are called out of and into. I have much more maturing to do in my own walk with Christ but I can say with Israel that my days have been few and evil and that God, throughout my life, has been very gracious to me. One of the best things he ever did to me, under very hard Providences, was to reveal that my concern for Truth was my sense of personal offense that others were sinning but that, deep down, I didn't really care about that person - only that he/she was sinning. When I began to understand what the Church is, it completely transformed my understanding of the Church. It's almost as if the curtain was lifted from my eyes and I heard the Lord saying to me: "Are not these people that I have purchased with my blood worth your time and concern?"