Mixed messages??
Posted on 11/13/2013 5:43:01 PM PST by Faith Presses On
The Bible clearly says that women should dress modestly. Why does much of the church in America not follow what the Bible says? (And I'm a woman myself, I should add). It's not so much new believers who dress immodestly who are a concern, but women in leadership.
"In 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; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
Mixed messages??
The subject was decency of dress, whereas 1Cor 11, whic deals with male headship, was invoked in regards to the hermeneutic that relegates texts to being cultural and not directly applicable today.
As for what long hair means, some say it meant covering the shoulders, but , what is obvious is that a man is not to have the hair length of the women, in keeping with the principle of signifying submission to male headship.
That is my point. Be very very careful about assuming that what God is telling YOU is the same as what he is telling others.
Your statement itself illustrates what i object to, that of effectively negating the literal transcendence of commands on modesty and male headship based on the premise of ambiguity, or that they lead to legalistic extremes, and or were cultural.
As to the clothing/modesty issue, I look at it this way.....I'd rather have a person in church, receiving God's Word, in a pair of shorts than not in church at all!
I, for a short while, went to a church where everyone "dressed to the nines" and looked down on those who showed up that didn't "measure up". You guessed it.......I stopped going to church, yet AGAIN!.
I now attend a church where all are welcome - shorts, sandals, what have you. It is the most loving, accepting church I've ever been in. Every week the sermon is about Jesus/Salvation and people want to come back. We are taught that it's not our job to judge others' hearts and souls but to be like Jesus was with sinners like the Samaritan woman....welcome them, embrace them and show them Jesus' love and make them want to hunger for more of his word! Lead by example and not harsh or judgmental words and they will voluntarily change.
I believe you are confounding the meaning of covering in verses 14 and 15 with that in the earlier verses.
In the earlier verses, the word translated in the AV as “covering” is from the Greek root “katakalupto”, which is an article of clothing that hangs down.
In verses 14 and 15, the word translated as “covering” in the AV is from the Greek root “peribolaiou”, which signifies a garment that is cast around, in this case, the shoulders.
And the earlier verses would not make sense if you replace the word “cover” with the word “hair”. It is a shame for a man to pray with hair on his head, and if a woman pray without hair, let her hair be cut.
And we have almost 2000 years of church history where the sense of these verses was clearly interpreted to mean some kind of head covering for the woman, be it a bonnet or kerchief.
About 150 years ago, women started wearing absurd hats as coverings in church, some looking like caricatures of mens’ hats, and others having what appeared to be birds’ nests and baskets of fruit.
Perhaps the preachers were relieved when women stopped wearing coverings at all, in the last 50 or so years.
In verses 14 and 15, the word translated as “covering” in the AV is from the Greek root “peribolaiou”, which signifies a garment that is cast around, in this case, the shoulders.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Hair is not a covering unless it is long enough for a covering which is the reason for verses 5 and 6, if a woman does not have enough hair for a covering then she can wear something as a covering.
This would correspond exactly with verse 15.
Any woman who dresses inappropriately bears some responsibility for the man’s reaction. She’s doing it to elicit a reaction so that makes her culpable.
A refreshing contrast to the modern view, which seems to think Christian liberty sanctions sensual dress, and cries legalism or pleads ambiguity when modesty is enjoined.
And it is getting so licentious in the world that even in news articles one must often look straight forward due to the ads on the side, though i can admit to inquisitive glaces otherwise. At least i can say that such makes the idea that they evolved to be inconceivable to me.
You must be legalistic, as Scripture is too ambiguous to censure such! /sar
I never have seen that, which would especially be contrary to Fundamentalist (which used ot be synonymous with Evangelical) faith, but the Puritans would be horrified. Meanwhile, while the author only mentions deviations from historical Evangelicalism, faith, Catholics remain the most liberal in their overall views.
> I don,t know for sure where you got that from but it
Greek Interlinear New Testament
And there is more than 1900 years of church history to back it up, as well as the witness of the contemporary church in locations that have not yet embraced postmodernism.
> plainly says hair in 14, and hair and covering in 15 and
> very plainly that it is given for a covering.
Yes, but the word for “covering” is different than it is in the earlier verses. My understanding is that, for about 1900 years, verses 14 and 15 have been interpreted by the majority of the church to mean a man’s hair should be shoulder length or less, and a woman’s hair should be at least long enough to cover the shoulders, because the Greek word used for “covering” here indicates something that wraps around, like a stole.
Greek Interlinear New Testament
I understand your concern: “Your statement itself illustrates what i object to, that of effectively negating the literal transcendence of commands on modesty and male headship based on the premise of ambiguity, or that they lead to legalistic extremes, and or were cultural.”
The reality is that these commands if these commands are to be implemented they must be interpreted. Like it or not, the interpreters are men attempting to apprehend God. Men almost always get it wrong.
If you are going to willfully refuse to understand logic, English and sentence structure I just can’t continue because communication would be fruitless.
Look if you want your girls to wear skortz, hair in a bun and doilies while playing basketball, by means have at it. I won’t stop you.
“Who defines what is modest?
I don,t think you really want an honest answer on that one.”
So you deny that human implementation is involved? Do you deny that humans make judgement in order to implement what they perceive to be the will of God?
Do people write books attempting to expound arguments based upon interpretations of God’s Word in order to implement a point of view?
Was Luther not implementing a point of view and an argument when he nailed his treatise to the the church door? Does God’s will and intent sort strike us with a white blinding light of certainty at all times? Does it strike us so strongly that instantly the Christian world falls into lockstep with a way of doing?
So tell me. Who defines modest? I can. But you may not like how I do it. I may be too liberal, or too conservative for you. I may be too light handed, or too heavy handed.
You are pretending that Christians can mystically walk in certain knowledge on these issues. But they never have have they?
I don’t know. I thought your post was fine.
As to the clothing/modesty issue, I look at it this way.....I’d rather have a person in church, receiving God’s Word, in a pair of shorts than not in church at all!
I will comfortably accept your post as instrument of surrender.
Good Day
Because not everyone believes in the bible. If there was a god I’m sure he has more important things to do than worry about hemlines and blouses.
Like it or not, the interpreters are men attempting to apprehend God. Men almost always get it wrong.
And although i have no argument with some one who see modesty a little different than some one else, any normal man knows how a sensually dressed woman can affect the men.
Some women may not care but i have never saw a woman in Church that appeared so dumb that she would not know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.