|
figmentPez -> RE: Youth Leader (12/6/2007 6:42:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gonzoguy
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.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DougHorton
Also note that Paul's definition of modesty was concerned with showing off wealth, not showing skin. The Mediterranean/Greek clothing showed a lot of skin. Modesty is concerned with not drawing attention to yourself and being able to blend into the crowd. A man in an expensive suit is just as immodest as a woman in a bikini.
And yes, Jesse has a valid point. Paul was more concerned with the doing of good works than clothing.
First, you've both completely missed the point of my post, and my quotation of scripture. Gonzoguy asked if the Church should be monitoring clothing. Scripture shows that there are times when the Church has a vested interest in what Christians are wearing. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a different sort of modesty. It doesn't matter if there are cultural differences to consider. It doesn't matter how specific Paul's instructions were, or if he made other instructions that are difficult to understand (and off-topic for this thread). The simple fact of the matter is that there are times when the clothing worn by Christians sends a message that it should not, and the Church needs to be concerned about the message being sent by Christians.
From your posts, I would have to come to the conclusion that DougHorton thinks that showing off wealth is unacceptable, but that showing off sexuality is acceptable. And I would have to conclude that Gonzoguy thinks that Paul's message was specific enough to apply only to the culture he was writing to, and cannot in any way be applied to any other time or place. Hopefully I'm wrong in my conclusions about both of these.
Let us look at the reality. There are ways in which clothing can be immodest. We must agree on that point, or this discussion is pointless. If someone can show up to lead wearing nothing but a lace thong and fishnet stockings, and the Church have no reason to find that objectionable, then what is the point of arguing over skirt length? If there is no line anywhere, ever, then what is the point of this thread? Can we agree that there are immodest forms of dress? That's my point. Not that this passages tells us that "skirts more than 2 inches above the knee are forbidden by God", but that Christians are called to modest dress, be that in modest displays of wealth or other forms of modesty. The call to modesty is not only for certain cultures, but all Christians are called to modest dress. If the exact definition of modest dress is influenced by local culture is another issue, my post was to show that there are lines, somewhere. That's not something that I've seen acknowledged in this thread yet.
As for the argument that "good deeds are what Paul cares about, not necessarily clothing." That's absurd. If Paul thought that clothing wouldn't matter if enough good deeds were done, he wouldn't have even bothered to talk about clothing. The women Paul was writing to were trying to get attention with displays of wealth, and Paul said that any attention they get should be on account of their good deeds in Christ, not on account of the money they have. This applies perfectly to other forms of modesty as well. Young women should be seeking to get attention based on their good deeds in Christ, not based on the amount of skin they show.
Once we acknowledge that Christians are called to modest dress, then we can start arguing about how to define what is modest and what is not. If there is no call to modesty at all, then there is no need to argue about how short a skirt must be to be "mini".
EDIT: Hopefully this post won't be considered to be a post on "modesty in general" because it is an important point that most, if not all, of those arguing that mini-skirts and halter tops are acceptable have not even acknowledged that any sort of dress would be inappropriate for a youth leader.
|
|
|
|