RE: Youth Leader

RE: Youth Leader (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics

Message

Ellie-Mae -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 7:13:53 AM)
quote: I wonder if this youth leader even thinks about if she is causing her fellow younger brothers in Christ to stumble, (by which I mean unintentionally or intentionally lusting over her, and getting their focus on HER instead of God) by wearing provocative clothes? I don’t think she is aware of that. If that is the case then she needs to be told in a loving way that she needs to respect her body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit and treat it as such. Flaunting herself by wearing clothes that can make people around her stumble is not bringing glory to God. But, if she is aware and is doing just to get the attention then she needs to step down and get her focus back and see the big picture. Where do you get that impression? I don't see anything in the OP about how this youth leader feels about anything. This youth leader is pretty much, if not entirely, hypothetical. I personally wouldn't send my kids to such a youth group. I am careful when choosing people to be spiritual role models for my kids.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 11:13:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladyichigo This is the verse that came to mind when I read the original post. 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. I wonder if this youth leader even thinks about if she is causing her fellow younger brothers in Christ to stumble, (by which I mean unintentionally or intentionally lusting over her, and getting their focus on HER instead of God) by wearing provocative clothes? I don’t think she is aware of that. If that is the case then she needs to be told in a loving way that she needs to respect her body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit and treat it as such. Flaunting herself by wearing clothes that can make people around her stumble is not bringing glory to God. But, if she is aware and is doing just to get the attention then she needs to step down and get her focus back and see the big picture. Okay - couple of things: 1. You may want to define what it means to "stumble" or to "cause others to stumble". As evidenced in the verse, this is an issue of salvation. Not just (as so many Christians are content to apply it to) any action that you or I might disagree with. 2. You've used the "body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" verse way out of context. You may want to look that one over again.

ta_mosquito -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 1:48:48 PM)
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE I've deleted more posts for being off topic. Please begin a new thread if you'd like to discuss the validity of youth groups. Tricia Forums Moderator Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

ladyichigo -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 2:49:21 PM)
quote: Ellie-Mae: Where do you get that impression? I don't see anything in the OP about how this youth leader feels about anything. This youth leader is pretty much, if not entirely, hypothetical. Wow. I'm sorry that I misread the OP. MY bad. I'll just eat my words now.

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:10:55 PM)
Hmmm... Shouldn't we as Christians (I'm a woman) wear things that take the focus off of us and put it squarely on Christ? As a former youth leader I was very conscious of what I wore so as not to take the boy's eyes off of our lessons on the Lord. Dressing in a scanty manner or in a manner that is revealing the cleavage or upper thigh is not appropriate. It shows parts of the body that are given for the sole purpose of pleasing a spouse. Those parts of the body are not made for 'general viewing'. Why is this concept so hard for some here to grasp? Seems fairly straightforward to me. Just for clarity: Both my dh and I were leaders together of the mixed gender group.

Ellie-Mae -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladyichigo quote: Ellie-Mae: Where do you get that impression? I don't see anything in the OP about how this youth leader feels about anything. This youth leader is pretty much, if not entirely, hypothetical. Wow. I'm sorry that I misread the OP. MY bad. I'll just eat my words now. LOL! Spit them out! Everyone is allowed mistakes, no one should have to eat their own words.[;)] I certainly don't want to eat any of my mistakes... I'd be stuffed!

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:17:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Hmmm... Shouldn't we as Christians (I'm a woman) wear things that take the focus off of us and put it squarely on Christ? You do understand where this logic will inevitably take you, right?

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gonzoguy quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Hmmm... Shouldn't we as Christians (I'm a woman) wear things that take the focus off of us and put it squarely on Christ? You do understand where this logic will inevitably take you, right? Oh, do please enlighten me on how allowing myself to show Christ is a bad thing? Obviously we should not go down the road of hyperbole and all put on burkas... Again...how is modesty of dress bad for women, men, children, anyone? P.S. you must have missed this part of my previous post...if you want to respond you can respond to that... quote: Dressing in a scanty manner or in a manner that is revealing the cleavage or upper thigh is not appropriate. It shows parts of the body that are given for the sole purpose of pleasing a spouse. Those parts of the body are not made for 'general viewing'.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:32:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Oh, do please enlighten me on how allowing myself to show Christ is a bad thing? Obviously we should not go down the road of hyperbole and all put on burkas... Well why not just forsake fashion entirely if, as you state, we should put the focus squarely on Christ. quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Again...how is modesty of dress bad for women, men, children, anyone? Its bad when people try to make a hard and fast rule about what is modest and what is not. Its even worse when someone attempts to judge another's spiritual maturity on their choice of clothing. quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Dressing in a scanty manner or in a manner that is revealing the cleavage or upper thigh is not appropriate. Why is that? Is this true in all circumstances or only at church? What about other cultures? What about sub-cultures within America? Does the amount showing of cleavage or upper thigh matter?

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:39:27 PM)
quote: Well why not just forsake fashion entirely if, as you state, we should put the focus squarely on Christ. Because we are to be pleasing to look at for our spouses...and because we should not look slovenly...that detracts from Christ, imo, as well. quote: Its bad when people try to make a hard and fast rule about what is modest and what is not. Its even worse when someone attempts to judge another's spiritual maturity on their choice of clothing. It is a heart issue though. If a person is dressing scantily in an attempt to get attention then that should be dealt with. quote: Dressing in a scanty manner or in a manner that is revealing the cleavage or upper thigh is not appropriate. It shows parts of the body that are given for the sole purpose of pleasing a spouse. Those parts of the body are not made for 'general viewing'. Since you only took a portion of my post that didn't convey the full meaning I was getting at. I very clearly explain myself here...those parts of the body, as well a quite a few others are meant only for marital viewing. Again, plain and straightforward.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Because we are to be pleasing to look at for our spouses...and because we should not look slovenly...that detracts from Christ, imo, as well. What if one is not married? Besides, you can look not slovenly without being fashionable. quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ It is a heart issue though. If a person is dressing scantily in an attempt to get attention then that should be dealt with. That is a big "if" and one that you simply cannot know by looking at another. quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Since you only took a portion of my post that didn't convey the full meaning I was getting at. I very clearly explain myself here...those parts of the body, as well a quite a few others are meant only for marital viewing. Again, plain and straightforward. Well, no, not really. I asked several questions that your post didn't address and which are significant to our discussion.

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:50:18 PM)
quote: Well, no, not really. I asked several questions that your post didn't address and which are significant to our discussion. I answered your questions...if a body part is for marital pleasure it should not be shown in a public manner...different culture or no.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ I answered your questions...if a body part is for marital pleasure it should not be shown in a public manner...different culture or no. So cleavage and upper thighs are for marital pleasure, then?

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 3:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gonzoguy quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ I answered your questions...if a body part is for marital pleasure it should not be shown in a public manner...different culture or no. So cleavage and upper thighs are for marital pleasure, then? quote: So cleavage and upper thighs are for marital pleasure, then? It seems that you are trying to 'dance logical circles' around me or 'catch' me in something...sigh...why when debating must people go down this path? I have been very clear in my thinking and have, I think, explained myself well enough. Yes, breasts, thighs, and other female parts are for marital pleasure. The exception being breasts as those are also for nourishment for a woman's children. Do you wonder why no one else is arguing with you?

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ It seems that you are trying to 'dance logical circles' around me or 'catch' me in something...sigh...why when debating must people go down this path? Learning is a good reason... quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ I have been very clear in my thinking and have, I think, explained myself well enough. Yes, breasts, thighs, and other female parts are for marital pleasure. The exception being breasts as those are also for nourishment for a woman's children. So, just so that I am understanding you correctly, cleavage, to any degree would be inappropriate - would you agree with that? Also, at what point does a skirt become inappropriate? How much of the upper thigh (and how do you define "upper thigh") would be showing in order for this to be inappropriate? quote: ORIGINAL: clag4christ Do you wonder why no one else is arguing with you? No, not really. Oh, also, you never addressed these two points: quote: What if one is not married? Besides, you can look not slovenly without being fashionable. That is a big "if" and one that you simply cannot know by looking at another. Care to?

clag4christ -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:07:24 PM)
You know what? I've made my points and you are insisting on nitpicking what I've said. Modesty is a virtue...if you can't understand that or realize it then nothing I say to you is going to change that... Maybe you should stop and think why no one else is debating this with you...

zoebob -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:10:13 PM)
quote: Oh, also, you never addressed these two points: quote: What if one is not married? Besides, you can look not slovenly without being fashionable. That is a big "if" and one that you simply cannot know by looking at another. Care to? I'll address them. If you aren't married then no one should be seeing those body parts. As for looking not slovenly but not being fashionable, that's OK. Being fashionable in and of itself is not wrong: only when it is immodest and draws attention to things that shouldn't be getting attention As far as your if: I can't think of any good reason why a person would dress with cleavage showing and most of your thigh showing. I do accept that for women who are well endowed it can be harder not to show cleavege than others and might allow a little grace there. Otherwise, I can't imagine how dressing in those ways can be a good thing.

zamdad -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:28:09 PM)
Gonzo, quote: Its bad when people try to make a hard and fast rule about what is modest and what is not. Its even worse when someone attempts to judge another's spiritual maturity on their choice of clothing. In a sense I agree with you. I think I get the premise you are getting at. Yet, as you push the issue further, you seem to be entering a realm where anyone can wear anything they want without fear of what others might think. I don't think any of us here are going to "judge" someone based oln what they do or don't wear. It is not our job to condemn someone, that's God's role. Yet, if we are wanting to communicate spiritual maturith to others, we are not going to dress in ways that incite or provoke others to begin thinking ungodly thoughts. At the same time, we all make judgments about other people all the time. Until we really get to know someone, we can only use the little information we gather on initial impressions to make some form of judgment. As a former probation officer that spent five years supervising sex offenders, I have spent countless hours in therapy sessions with the man and women in the group. What I've learned is that the majority of the time, people are aware of the message they are communicating to others with the clothes they wear. It's very easy to say that one was not intending to convey a sexual message or that they weren't aware, but after really getting to know someone, we find that excuses come easy and that, like a belly button, everybody has one.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zoebob I'll address them. If you aren't married then no one should be seeing those body parts. They aren't seeing the "body parts". Cleavage isn't a body part. Now, I'll admit that women shouldn't be flaunting their breasts, but is any/all cleavage bad? What if, like you said, a woman is particularly large? Should they be chastised as well? quote: ORIGINAL: zoebob As for looking not slovenly but not being fashionable, that's OK. Being fashionable in and of itself is not wrong: only when it is immodest and draws attention to things that shouldn't be getting attention This begs the question of which things are okay to get attention and which are not. Why not just get rid of tight clothing? That draws attention to a lot. quote: ORIGINAL: zoebob Otherwise, I can't imagine how dressing in those ways can be a good thing. What if they simply find that clothing comfortable or they like the way it looks on them?

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zamdad Gonzo, quote: Its bad when people try to make a hard and fast rule about what is modest and what is not. Its even worse when someone attempts to judge another's spiritual maturity on their choice of clothing. In a sense I agree with you. I think I get the premise you are getting at. Yet, as you push the issue further, you seem to be entering a realm where anyone can wear anything they want without fear of what others might think. I don't think any of us here are going to "judge" someone based oln what they do or don't wear. It is not our job to condemn someone, that's God's role. Yet, if we are wanting to communicate spiritual maturith to others, we are not going to dress in ways that incite or provoke others to begin thinking ungodly thoughts. At the same time, we all make judgments about other people all the time. Until we really get to know someone, we can only use the little information we gather on initial impressions to make some form of judgment. As a former probation officer that spent five years supervising sex offenders, I have spent countless hours in therapy sessions with the man and women in the group. What I've learned is that the majority of the time, people are aware of the message they are communicating to others with the clothes they wear. It's very easy to say that one was not intending to convey a sexual message or that they weren't aware, but after really getting to know someone, we find that excuses come easy and that, like a belly button, everybody has one. I just happen to think that for a woman or man to want to be attractive is not a bad thing. Can this be taken too far? Yeah, of course. But does a moderately low-cut top or a skirt that is above the knees necessarily mean they are wanting to incite others to lust and sexual thoughts? Absolutely not.

Conundrum -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 4:58:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gonzoguy I'm just going to go ahead and say what I think: I think you're scared to take your logic and apply it to yourself. I think you occasionally show cleavage, or some thigh. But to admit that, or to even define that vague guidelines that you seem to espouse would be to condemn yourself. Either that, or you just realize that you cannot make the statements you have been making without coming to clear guidelines, but you don't want to do that because to do so would be to fall into legalism. So you don't. You quit. WOW. Way to make a leap the size of the Grand Canyon. Careful, or you may fall in. As for hard, fast rules about modesty, I don't believe you can really say that X number of inches above the knee is immodest, etc. because different people have different body types. What may be immodest for one is modest for another simply due to their shape. OK, so we say that showing cleavage is immodest (which I agree with, to a point). How about those women who have NO cleavage? How about those Hollywood types that wear "necklines" down to their waist because they have no bosom? That's still immodest in my book. What I'm saying is that instead of asking "where is the line of immodesty?" and flirting with that line, one should dress modestly, period. It's like the question of "how far can I go before falling into sexual sin?" - it's far better to just stay away from the line. Since when is it so hard to dress appropriately?? [8\|] One last thought. The subject was brought up about other cultures. It seems to me like this thread is talking about THIS culture. If a jungle tribe goes topless, does that make it right in THIS culture? Does it mean I should go around parading my chest for all to see? Of course not. That's an old, tired, invalid argument.

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 5:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Conundrum WOW. Way to make a leap the size of the Grand Canyon. Careful, or you may fall in. My leap is far less substantial than, say, making a judgment of someone's spiritual maturity simply by looking at them. quote: ORIGINAL: Conundrum As for hard, fast rules about modesty, I don't believe you can really say that X number of inches above the knee is immodest, etc. because different people have different body types. What may be immodest for one is modest for another simply due to their shape. OK, so we say that showing cleavage is immodest (which I agree with, to a point). How about those women who have NO cleavage? How about those Hollywood types that wear "necklines" down to their waist because they have no bosom? That's still immodest in my book. What I'm saying is that instead of asking "where is the line of immodesty?" and flirting with that line, one should dress modestly, period. It's like the question of "how far can I go before falling into sexual sin?" - it's far better to just stay away from the line. Well this last part depends. I am certainly familiar with the concept of "building a fence around the law" in an effort to keep people from flirting with the line. On the other hand, those fences can become a tool of oppression and condemnation which is very close to what I am seeing displayed here. quote: ORIGINAL: Conundrum Since when is it so hard to dress appropriately?? [8\|] One last thought. The subject was brought up about other cultures. It seems to me like this thread is talking about THIS culture. If a jungle tribe goes topless, does that make it right in THIS culture? Does it mean I should go around parading my chest for all to see? Of course not. That's an old, tired, invalid argument. That's old, tired, invalid logic. Simply because we are talking about America does not mean we don't deal with other cultures. America is a "melting pot" so to speak. So we have people coming here from, literally, everywhere. However, what you've also ignored is the fact that there are various sub-cultures throughout American which find their influence in any number of factors be it wealth, music, ethnicity, entertainment, etc. What is considered "modest" in the deep south isn't going to be the same as in Southern California. What those in the Northwest will consider scandalous will not be considered scandalous in Miami.

stellaluna -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 5:08:15 PM)
For the purposes of the OP, we don't know whether the woman in question was showing any cleavage or upper thigh.

figmentPez -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 5:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gonzoguy Really? Do you think that the church should be monitoring clothing? Is THAT what the church should be about? 1Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, Apparently Paul thought that the Church should be monitoring the dress of those in the church. Why is this admonition to modesty acceptable, but admonishing a theoretical youth leader unacceptable?

gonzoguy -> RE: Youth Leader (12/5/2007 5:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: gonzoguy Really? Do you think that the church should be monitoring clothing? Is THAT what the church should be about? 1Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, Apparently Paul thought that the Church should be monitoring the dress of those in the church. Why is this admonition to modesty acceptable, but admonishing a theoretical youth leader unacceptable? There are many things to consider. First, Paul was talking to people who had been fully assimilated into their culture. What the culture deemed immodest, it only seems logical, Paul would deem immodest. However, things are much different today. The church culture is far separated/different from the culture at large (for better or worse) so we cannot simply apply the verse across the board. Second, Paul's admonishment contains several, very specific, things. Like no braiding of hair or wearing jewelry. Further, Paul goes on to give several other admonishments about women - most notably that he doesn't permit them to speak in church. I don't suppose you would hold the same views regarding braided hair, jewelry, and speaking in church? It seems, then, that Paul saw the value and importance of culture. Finally, Paul follows the section that you quoted with these words, "but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." It seems that good deeds are what Paul cares about, not necessarily clothing. And I would argue, that this is what today's church should be concerned about as well.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI