SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Modesty, the Church and True Sexual Identity.

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
ShirHashirim
Member



Joined: 2005/11/19
Posts: 16


 Re: Modesty, the Church and True Sexual Identity.

"if a women develops this quiet, gentle and submissive spirit is there any need for her to atract a man by dressing like a harlot. No."

Amen to that! That was wonderful and i pray that this truth will be revealed to all the women in and out of the church.

and while your teaching the guys on this like ginnyrose suggested, can you please tell them to stop shopping in the womens section for the "tight fitted" girl pants!!!


_________________
Ruxandra

 2005/11/25 1:36Profile
ShirHashirim
Member



Joined: 2005/11/19
Posts: 16


 Re:

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deut 22:5 :-D


_________________
Ruxandra

 2005/11/25 1:57Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7472
Mississippi

 Re:

Strange, is it not about cross dressing: if a male would wear women's clothing he would be looked at crosseyed by the general population, considered a weirdo and a homo. However, let a female do the same, it's practice is defended, even by males! Oh my! something is really screwed up here! I am very uncomfortable when I look at a human being and wonder what gender I am looking at!!! We do know how what God says about it.....

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2005/11/25 11:36Profile









 Re: Modesty, the Church and True Sexual Identity.

Quote:
considered a weirdo and a homo. However, let a female do the same, it's practice is defended, even by males!

I've been thinking about this crossdressing phenomenon... because men did not always wear trousers - for instance - Jesus didn't. Also, not to defend men dressing in women's clothing (as opposed to a kilt, or robe or other male non-trouser clothing) not all 'cross-dressers' are homosexual - in fact, probably the more are heterosexual.

As for men liking women in trousers - it's because it shows the female form unforgivingly that it is so popular, is it not?... although if the men in a community do not rally round the (lone) women who need to do jobs (I mean domestically), which should be done in trousers, there may be some women who feel driven to wear them. Usually women have a choice to wear a skirt at their place of employment - but that is not always a practical solution these days.

 2005/11/25 12:32
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7472
Mississippi

 Re:

ShirHashirum wrote:

Quote:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deut 22:5


This verse used to trouble me some, wondering what it means when men wore robes, looking like women. One day I went to the public library and got a book about styles of clothing people wore in ages past. Only thing I noticed that was different during the time of Christ is that men wore 'mini-skirts' or kilts. After pondering this some more I came to two conclusions:
1. Men and women dressd different, as most cultures do and from my perspective in the 20th century I may not be able to discern totally what form this all took.
2. God made male and female and he called it 'very good', the only time he used this description was after the end of the sixth day of creation. Adam & Eve bore the image of God. They were different, made to compilment each other..fit together absolutely perfectly. He now wants us to celebrate this awesome wonder by each wearing a different costume so people will be able to marvel and give thanks for his work of creation!

Both genders bear the image of God, seriously marred by the fall, but it is still there. How we relate to others depends a lot of what gender I am and the one I am relating to. People will respond differently because of gender. Nothing wrong wih that, it's just the way we are made. So dressing like a different gender, blurs this line of distinction. It is saying we are not pleased with the gender God made us which is a slap in God's face.

About work dictating what clothes one should wear. (Now this will definately be controversial). Obviously, when one lives in the frigid climates one will dress for warmeth and survival. Even so, I would guess there may be some distinction. But most of us do not live there. The work we females do....I grew up on the farm, did all kinds of chores, fed the animals, fowl, caught the chickens for crating to be sent to the market(nasty work, I promise!), drove tractor, played in the hay mow....like all farm children do. Mom never dressed us in pants thinking they would be more modest for work or play. Dad was very careful we girls would take care of our bodies, not subject them to real hard work which could damage our child bearing abilities! (Between us three we had 13 live births and maybe one miscarriage). If our work means our modesty would be compromised, perhaps we need to carefully consider what can be worn to minimize that and still honor God with our apparel.

The scripture quoted says it is an abomination to God to dress what pertains to the opposite sex. Some scholars have said what God calls an abomination will always be one unless he comes along later and nullifies it with a different command, e.g., Peter was told in a vision to rise and eat unclean animals which heretofor were an abomination. A very interesting study is to take Strong's Concordance and do a search on abomnination, study the context and compare it with NT teaching.

How to dress? would it not be best to ask the Holy Spirit for inspiration, to teach us?

What say?

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2005/11/26 10:34Profile
Sir_Edward
Member



Joined: 2005/10/19
Posts: 124
Michigan

 Re:

It is very intersting the way this discussion has turned.

I am looking at the issue of sexual identity, but in our minds we immediately turn to dress. I am not saying it is wrong but it is interesting to not e that some think that dress does not have anything to do with sexual identity but the moment you talk about sexual identity the discussion turns to dress.

The verse is a very interesting one becasue the fact simple is that men and women should dress differently. When everyone dresses the same the lines get blurred as to sexaul idenity. Histroically in the USA. Has anyone else noticed how much homosexaulity increased and became more accepted once ladies decided that they could dress and act like men. wonder why? :smart:

The fact remains that Bible points to this in this verse as a principle that those cultures who dress in such a way that you can't make distinction are indeed an abomination to him. He created male and female and he expects the differences to be noted and celebrated.

Ginnyrose,
My mother's expereince on the farm is similar to yours. She and her sister stayed in the house and helped with the cooking, cleaning, they kept a small garden, took care of the chickens (eggs), they fedd the animals but they did none of the heavy work like haying or out in the field or wrestling with the cattle, etc. Her brothers helped with that. My mother's sister had 4 children (no miscarriages) and was one of the best homemakers and i might add very happy. My mom became a medical technologist and all he early life worried about things concerning her career -- result I am an only child, several miscarriages and difficulty getting preganant in the first palce. My mother then turned ot God so things have gotten better for her. But in the 60's when she was getting started the womens lib movement had an impact on her in college -- the difference is obvious.

There are two questions as to sexual identity and dress. One is this issue of dressing like the sex we are and two, what exactly does it mean to be modest in dress?

The first becomes difficult in when you consider that as times have changed -- dress in different cultures is well different as well concerning this.

This is also a problem with dress on the modest question. Culture play some part in it. You mention cold climes but hot ones also exist. In soem palces too many clothes or ones that don't breath well can kill you. In some cultures being covered up in any way would be modest. A women in a culture near the equator faces the fact that see must be modest, but modesty may simply mean she wears a short skirt and something over her chest because the rest of the women in he culture wear nothing at all. Is modesty culturally realative? It does make it hard to address this question because is the smae cultures where the women where nothing or very little the men dress the same. Only for special occasions and cerimonies do you see the difference. Are they in a sense dressing the same? If we are going to maintain that modesty and difference in dress is part of sexual identity then we also must be ready to preach to such cultures that their culture is in some way wrong as to how they dress and they need to cover up and make a distiction in how they dress. There is a lot of opposition to this out there now because missionaries are not supposed to --'westernize' or 'Christanize' a culture. This is wat they would be considered to be doing if they did this.

For the good ole USA -- I think the differences in dress may have come down to one article of clothing -- the dress itself. When a man wears one he is considered 'abnormal' even in this liberated culture, what is interesting is that the opposite is not the case as someone pointed out. Am I wrong here? I realize there are other ways to look feminine without the dress, but it seems to be the dividing line. Hard one to consider for me. it is hard to find a girl or woman in my own church that wears a dress all the time.
What's a pastor to do?

Blessings.


_________________
Ed Raby

 2005/11/26 12:39Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7472
Mississippi

 Re:

Sir, I read your original post, and the most recent one, and I can see you have a good grasp on the realities of how the church got to where it is.

As I see the world and remember well what has been and from reading history, I have come to one conclusion. We will never see revival unless these gender issues are resolved IN the church. Forget about the world: it will never be converted; it is those people who call themselves by God's name who we are concerned about. (Obviously, I do not believe in 'once saved always saved'). This would include fathers taking responcibility of their children - read Malachi 4:6: "And he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the heart of the chuildren to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." If the fathers would be reconciled with their children it would go a long way in solving these gender issues and cut the divorce rate among church people (Mothers love it when their husbands love their children!).

How to do it? You can not do it alone. One faithful Indian lady suggested we need to pray for a mighty visitation of the Holy Spirit. Sounds like the only solution to me...and in the meantime one needs to educate and encourage brethren to take the leadership in this issue. This I hope I am doing....

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2005/11/26 17:03Profile









 Re:

Sir Edward wrote:

Quote:
I just want people to understand the orignial intent of the holiness movement was holiness of heart. Once that is achived -- dress and behavior line up accordingly



What does holiness got to do with clothes?

I know people who are not even believers who dress accordingly, so again I say, what does holiness got to do with clothes.

My pastor used to say all the time, if your holy on the inside it will show up on the outside.

I know alot of holiness people and they may look whatever "holy" on the outside, but they ain't got no holiness on the inside.

So if you remove the clothes and seperate the clothes from the teaching of holiness, I wonder what the outcome would be. Because everyone who speaks about holiness always without fail talk about what the women should wear, and then they go on talking about hair......need I go on?

I wonder what ole Peter and Paul would think of our pitiful rendition of holiness, I think they would rent their clothes and rebuke us harshly until we at least start to see that the outward man is perishing the inward man is being renewed day by day.

I see alot of believers that are holy, but they don't look like what the denominations want them to look like. T-shirts, Jeans and sneakers.

As long as your covered, covered with rags, or a banana leaf or covered in Egyptian cotton, the main thing is that your covered and you do it modestly.

When talking about holiness, clothes should never be talked about in connection to it, that is where the true root of legalism comes in. But if we talk about moderation all manner of things are discussed in this area. But if any man be contentious, we have no such custom neither the churches of God.

Karl

 2005/11/26 22:14
myfirstLove
Member



Joined: 2005/11/26
Posts: 496


 Re:

Amen, Karl!


_________________
Lisa

 2005/11/26 23:11Profile
Sir_Edward
Member



Joined: 2005/10/19
Posts: 124
Michigan

 Re:

Karl,

Quote:
What does holiness got to do with clothes?
I know people who are not even believers who dress accordingly, so again I say, what does holiness got to do with clothes.



The assumption you seem to have is that the answer is nothing -- would you back that with Scripture please. No. Let's use logic first. If you really believe this I want you to go to church one Sunday and tell the women that because holiness has nothing to do with clothes and we are free from legalism then they should all experess this by showing up topless or in string bikinis. It is the logical conclusion of what you are saying. You even in a sense contradict yourself with this statement:
Quote:
As long as your covered, covered with rags, or a banana leaf or covered in Egyptian cotton, the main thing is that your covered and you do it modestly.


Now wait a minute --first you say that it doesn't have anything to do with clothes but then you say it does because you still need to be modest in dress. But how do they dress modestly without clothes? If you really think about what you saying I think you would admit that it is not well thought out which is what we are trying to do here. What exactly does modesty mean is the question we are engaging.

Quote:
So if you remove the clothes and seperate the clothes from the teaching of holiness, I wonder what the outcome would be. Because everyone who speaks about holiness always without fail talk about what the women should wear, and then they go on talking about hair......need I go on?



Unfortunately this part only shows that you have been brought up to assume that holiness is sometihng that that the holiness movement only expressed in dress. This is very far from the truth. They (the first generation of the holiness movement) started with holiness of heart. Dress in this matter was not their original concern but their desire to be holy and not BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO OTHERS led them to consider it. Dress also was not the only issue here -- how one conducted oneself at work, interpersonal relationships, holiness in marriage, dating (although most did not date but courted one person they beleived they would marry) as well as many other issues were addressed. Dress was only one of them and it was because it was mentioned by the Bible. Sorry your observation only shows you ignorance of what the original holiness people believed (note I did not say yo uare stupid -- just that you show a lack of knowledge) -- you know that they talked about dress, but you have not engaged in WHY they talked about it.

Quote:
I wonder what ole Peter and Paul would think of our pitiful rendition of holiness, I think they would rent their clothes and rebuke us harshly until we at least start to see that the outward man is perishing the inward man is being renewed day by day.


Paul said in 1st Timothy:
Quote:
NIV -- [b]I also want women to dress modestly[/b], with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, [b]appropriate for women who profess to worship God[/b].

NAS-- Likewise, [b]I want (U)women to adorn themselves with proper clothing [/b], modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10but rather by means of good works, [b]as is proper for women making a claim to godliness[/b].



Ummm -- kind of speaks against you orignial idea here that dress has nothing to do with holiness. Paul certainly links the two direstly in this single sentence. Oh -- I almost forgot Peter.

Quote:
Your adornment must [b]not be merely[/b] external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
4but let it be (E)the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.



Huh - -he talks about dress too and he says that they should not be mearly concerned about dress -- notice he does not say -- 'don't give any conern at all as to how you dress' -- he says there are simply weighter matters a than JUST dress. But he does not say that dress is not a concern at all -- just a lesser one -- that would be reading into Scripture here if we were to say he is telling them it does not matter at all.

Simply put I agree that Peter an Paul would rend their clothes (modestly ;-)) in the fact that people think that, because the inward man (our spiritual side) is being renewed and the outward man (our body/flesh -- thus this verse really has nothing to do with dress because it does not address the question at all) is perishing that this renewal has nothing to do with outward conduct when James says that 'faith without works is dead.' Holiness is about inward heart and OUTWARD life. To deny this is to deny large chucks of what they both taught and the other apostles as well. To say that holiness has nothing to do with how we express ourselves outwardly is not Biblical.

Quote:
I see alot of believers that are holy, but they don't look like what the denominations want them to look like. T-shirts, Jeans and sneakers.


I would agree -- I have never had much use for the idea that we must dress up to be holy either-- in fact the above quote from Paul seems to say that that is immodest too. I have always opened my church to anyone regardlesss of dress, but those who claim Christianity and christ should consider what it means to be modest in dress from God's perspective.

Quote:
When talking about holiness, clothes should never be talked about in connection to it, that is where the true root of legalism comes in. But if we talk about moderation all manner of things are discussed in this area. But if any man be contentious, we have no such custom neither the churches of God.



:-)

I would contend that as dangerous as legalism is . Antinomianism is a danger as well. Legalism does not come when we simple engage the topic of dress. If that is that case than Paul and Peter violate what you say. Because they talk about dress in the Scriptures -- so are they legalistic? Legalism comes when EVERYTHING is about the outward. As the holiness movement left the first generation this is what gradually happened. People don't remember the parents of the holiness movement so much as its children unfortunately But a desire to dress properly because of modesty of heart and a desire not to be a stumbing block to others considers both the inward and the outward.. You become Antinomian (beleive in a cheap and easy grace) when you only consider only the inward . It is faith without works. My study of church history tells me such a belief springs from Gnosticism, a heresy John the apostle deals with in 1 John, that beleived that you could do anything outwardly (even blatantly sin) and grace would cover it. "Pursue holiness -- without which know one will see the Lord." Holiness has everything to do with it and dress does indeed have something to do with holiness. I am not saying it has everything to do with it -- but it is part of it.

What Ginnyrose, myself and other are trying to do here is engage the ramifications of these verses and what Biblical modesty means. Note in the Scriptures whenever modesty is mentioned there is talk about clothes as well so what we are doing is Scriptural. On the one hand we understand the perils of legalism -- we do not want to teach people if they do these things they are holy because they do them. Inward transformation must come first through faith. On the other hand we cannot say that holiness of heart will not express itself outwardly including in dress -- because Peter and Paul say it will. This also has a lot do with other things that clearly called sins of the flesh by Paul as well -- sensuality, efeminate (there is a direct reference to crossdressing with this sin by the way), homosexuality, nakedness, etc. all mentioned as works of the flesh have something to do with dress. Try to demonstrate what one of these is as a sin without mentioning dress in some way. Particularly sensuality.

Thanks for you post by the way, but I have thought this issue out and I used to beleive much as you do -- further study of the Scriptures has changed my mind. Especially what Peter and Paul had to say about it.

Please do not be angry with this post -- I do not mean to offend, but you have said what many others have said to me and I want to set the record straight on this issue. I ma sure you are a very sincere Christian, but you should reconsider this issue further.

Blessings.


_________________
Ed Raby

 2005/11/27 1:56Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy