Be not conformed to this world - Clothing discussion

[Danfrey]

Clearly being decorated would be implicated by the parentheticals the apostils attach to the proposition. As for Tertullian and his contemporaries, they were certainly closer to the apostils in time and thus probably language then us, but the Mediterranean was far from a monolithic culture at that time, though most of the upper classes spoke Greek. Also stoicism was quite prevalent in the intellectual circles of that time. It is quite possible that scholars coming to Messiah could have confused Christian chastity with stoic prudery. I am not saying they were intentionally syncretistic, but it is possible that some prejudices followed them from their secular philosophies, so I take what they say with a grain or two of (cough) salt.
Is Tertullian your primary source for the “covering ones sensual features” principle? (Which in many cultures would of course include the face)
My primary source for covering ones sensual features is the New Testament. When we look at the verses addressing clothing we find words such as shamefacedness (aidos), sobriety (sophrosune) and modesty (kosmios). Also, as you read the verses in context they portray a woman who is not eye candy. They portray a reserved woman who's beauty is not for the public eye. When I look at these verses along with Jesus' comment that to look upon a woman with lust is the same as adultery, I am comfortable coming to the conclusion that the sensual features need to be covered except in the presence of her husband. Also, when we see the drawings of early Christians in the catacombs, we find woman who are covered very plainly. There are no drawings of woman with cloths clinging to their bodies. Add to this the writings of the early church and I have no doubt that God intends our sensual body parts to be covered.

As far as the covering of the face, I have no problem with adjusting to a stricter standard where culture would dictate. I only have a problem with adjusting to a more relaxed standard when culture allows.

[Tpolg]

Yes, I see, but what is the fundamental standard that cannot be relaxed and how is it to be determined?

[Danfrey]

For me that fundamental standard is one of modesty, a cover for ladies, a lack of cover for men and no jewelry. I am not comfortable defining it beyond this because scripture does not. I sense you are asking for details of what modest is. I am afraid I can't answer that one for you. It is open to some interpretation. I would definately say that if it would be considered too revealing for any worldly situation it is probably immodest.

[Adara]

Hello Danfrey --

It took me a couple of sessions to read this thread all the way through, but it was very interesting!

I would like to add a dimension to the conversation -- that for some, modesty and submission to one's husband are just part of the overall picture.

Clothing can also be a reminder that one is not merely an individual, but a functioning member within the body of Christ. Hence the confomity of Plain dress within Old order Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Bretheren, and so on. If it were just about modesty, many of these people could wear different accommodating styles that would suit personal preference. But they choose to outwardly identify themselves -- sometimes at great cost -- as a group.

It is a very strange concept to outsiders who have been born into a culture where they are an island unto themselves, where the concept of self identity and self will is nurtured and encouraged. Yet the heart of Christianity is the polar opposite of this way of thinking. It is the great equalizer, the vanquisher of the Ego.

Another thought: it could be pointed out that it's much more difficult to go to a nightclub, or an adult-rated movie, or curse in line at the grocer's when you stand out in a crowd. How many people could say that wearing a cross necklace would do that? *



Looking forward to more on this,

-- A

*Not to say that a mode of dress can keep one from sinning in one's heart, however. Anyone who thinks this is dangerously mistaken.

[Danfrey]

I see what you are saying, and I agree that conformity to a church standard can be a real blessing. The biggest issue I have with a church standard is when it is elevated to the same level as scripture. It is important that we differentiate between the two. There have been way too many divisions caused by standards that were additions to scripture.

[CelticRose]

Perhaps some flexability is needed too. I can't imagine it is easy to muck out a cow barn in long skirts - or launch a boat, or ride a horse. Pants would be more practical.

[MrJim]

Perhaps some flexability is needed too. I can't imagine it is easy to muck out a cow barn in long skirts - or launch a boat, or ride a horse. Pants would be more practical.

:wave: Hey CelticRose

You'd be surprised what these local plain mennonite girls & women get done on those dresses-and they are long...

[Tpolg]

Many of my relatives are old order brethren, and the girls seem to have a great deal of fun in their cape dresses. In fact I think they have a great deal more then other girls, perhaps because they are not worried about how they look, and are thus truly pleasant to gaze upon.

[Adara]

Danfrey said:
I see what you are saying, and I agree that conformity to a church standard can be a real blessing. The biggest issue I have with a church standard is when it is elevated to the same level as scripture. It is important that we differentiate between the two. There have been way too many divisions caused by standards that were additions to scripture.Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. However I think that it should be explained that what may seem like a trivial matter to some (i.e., the exact width of a hat's brim, or the style of bonnet) can involve a deeper , unseen situation: a wrestling of the will. As you yourself know, as a loving parent asks that their children respectfully follow their decisions; some groups view their church's rulings in the same way. For them, the church is not just an organization with a lot of unusual demands, but a family that is to be loved and respected -- even if it is not perfect. As it's pointed out in Ephesians 5:21, we are to "submit to one another" out of reverence for Christ.

It is, admittedly, not an easy thing to do.


Celtic Rose said:
Perhaps some flexability is needed too. I can't imagine it is easy to muck out a cow barn in long skirts - or launch a boat, or ride a horse. Pants would be more practical.

As someone who has worn long, full skirts doing daily chores, I can say that it really isn't much of a problem. :)

I have a socio-historical theory about why many women are for wearing trousers/pants instead of what is termed a "skirt" or "dress" today. The first generation of the twentieth century was brought up in an era when long, full dresses and skirts (read: practical) gave way to form-fitting pieces -- not so much as a nod to fashion but as a concession to war-time rationing. Cloth was expensive! Since movement was reduced, the hemline moved upward from ankle/mid-calf to just below the knees. During the next generation, this was the norm -- but it, too was impractical, for now a woman's legs were exposed to cold draughts and (even worse) the demand that they should always properly cross their legs when sitting down. It became a burden that symbolised for many the oppresion they felt from men. So during the 1960s and 70s, they disposed the notion of dresses and skirts altogether, choosing to only wear them for decorous occasions (church, weddings, funerals) or for when commanding the undivided attention of a man. (mini-skirts). By century's end, there was a whole generation of young women who knew nothing BUT bluejeans and sweatpants. So now, the very idea of wearing a dress every day is met with suspicion or else shrugged off as nice, but out-moded.



Just my thoughts, of course; others are welcome.

[Adara]

Danfrey saud:
I see what you are saying, and I agree that conformity to a church standard can be a real blessing. The biggest issue I have with a church standard is when it is elevated to the same level as scripture. It is important that we differentiate between the two. There have been way too many divisions caused by standards that were additions to scripture.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. However I think that it should be explained that what may seem like a trivial matter to some (i.e., the exact width of a hat's brim, or the style of bonnet) can involve a deeper , unseen situation: a wrestling of the will. As you yourself know, as a loving parent asks that their children respectfully follow their decisions; some groups view their church's rulings in the same way. For them, the church is not just an organization with a lot of unusual demands, but a family that is to be loved and respected -- even if it is not perfect. As it's pointed out in Ephesians 5:21, we are to "submit to one another" out of reverence for Christ.

It is, admittedly, not an easy thing to do.


Celtic Rose said:
Perhaps some flexability is needed too. I can't imagine it is easy to muck out a cow barn in long skirts - or launch a boat, or ride a horse. Pants would be more practical.

As someone who has worn long, full skirts doing daily chores, I can say that it really isn't much of a problem. :)

I have a socio-historical theory about why many women are for wearing trousers/pants instead of what is termed a "skirt" or "dress" today. The first generation of the twentieth century was brought up in an era when long, full dresses and skirts (read: practical) gave way to form-fitting pieces -- not so much as a nod to fashion but as a concession to war-time rationing. Cloth was expensive! Since movement was reduced, the hemline moved upward from ankle/mid-calf to just below the knees. During the next generation, this was the norm -- but it, too was impractical, for now a woman's legs were exposed to cold draughts and (even worse) the demand that they should always properly cross their legs when sitting down. It became a burden that symbolised for many the oppresion they felt from men. So during the 1960s and 70s, they disposed the notion of dresses and skirts altogether, choosing to only wear them for decorous occasions (church, weddings, funerals) or for when commanding the undivided attention of a man. (mini-skirts). By century's end, there was a whole generation of young women who knew nothing BUT bluejeans and sweatpants. So now, the very idea of wearing a dress every day is met with suspicion or else shrugged off as nice, but out-moded.



Just my thoughts, of course; others are welcome.

[Danfrey]

Adara,

As with many issues, the conformity in dress comes with many positive and negative consequences. I have been part of churches that expect conformity and churches that will not even address a lack of modesty. For our family, we found that teaching modesty and headship was key. I would like my children to wrestle with the issue of what it means to follow Biblical principles rather than follow them because they are expected by the church. I understand completely that there are many who follow church standards out of a sincere desire to follow Christ and I applaude them for it. Unfortuately, in many circles tradition has been elevated to the level of scripture and one can be excommunicated for "pride, rebellion or whatever other label is put on personal conviction." There are groups that consider it prideful to exceed the church standard. This idea escapes me. One such issue was the length of dresses. I attended a church that frowned on ladies wearing their dresses too long. The standard was to have the dresses a couple inches below the knee. If a lady chose to wear her dress ankle length, she was not submitting to the church. This type of thinking just doesn't work for me. Again, I understand the reasons for many church standards and would have argued for them a few years back, but now I tend to have a different view.

[Adara]

Yes, it can be very difficult to sort out personal conviction from pride, especially if someone has not been raised in a community where maintaining a strict dress standard is vital for group cohesion and identity.

This is perhaps why there is much misunderstanding between the various Old Order groups. Each has its own subtle convictions and identity, which makes it hard, if not impossible, to submit fully to other communities over differing rules. Those raised in the "outside world" do not even have this larger sense of identity, and thus have to forge one entirely for themselves -- so joining a group that already has formed a common mindset would be quite formidible.

It's a sad thing, indeed, when a Christian feels they must endlessly move from place to place seeking ideal fellowship -- when it can be found wherever "two or three are gathered in my name". (Matt 18:20)

[Danfrey]

This is where I believe there is a place for new groups of old ideas. The Charity people are a good example of an Anabaptist group that many converts were able to feel like they belong. I personally enjoy home fellowship settings of 3 or 4 families. The family of God is so diverse that there is definately room for differences outside scriptural commandments.

Thanks for your input on this. So often it is easy to get only one side of an issue in a small setting like this.

[CelticRose]

Hi back, Menno.

Adara,
I find your ideas interesting. I belong to the jeans generation & find skirts both uncomfortable & immodest (i don't think i can be wearing them properly) but my church affiliation has traditionally put more emphasis on not drawing attention to oneself through one's dress & modesty than on conformity to a group identity - with perhaps one notable exception which interestingly is no longer worn by any group I am aware of.

I do think groups such as the Amish provide a witness & a testimony that perhaps other Christian groups should note. Thankfully it is not clothing that saves us but the grace of God.

[Adara]

Just thought I'd show some pics to illustrate "practical modest" from "impractical modest".

Impractical (yet modest) skirt:
http://www.l-a-m-b.com/images/products/product/454.jpg



Practical modest skirt:
http://images-p.qvc.com/is/image/a/61/a70161_987.101?$swatchlarge$


As mentioned before, the problem for a lot of women in my generation is that they have only worn the former, and have found it very restricting. I wear dresses and skirts like the second example, and have just as much freedom of movement (if not more) as when I wear jeans.

[CelticRose]

Um, I like the 2nd skirt but sad experience has taught that a lap full of children will have it up round my hips in no time (definitely NOT modest) & a stiff breeze will do the same. I must be remarkably uncordinated or something & I seriously hate having my legs exposed. I belonged to a church for a very brief time that taught women should only wear dresses but I was so uncomfortable because I felt immodest we changed churches. There were other issues so it wasn't just the dress thing. I favour long shirts over long baggy pants. My body is not for public viewing, not even at the beach.

[Danfrey]

Skirts can be very modest if they are worn properly. My wife could do just about anything she desired in a skirt. I agree that there are alternatives though. I believe that if we focused on the issue of modesty rather than trying so hard to push dresses and skirts that we might have more Christian ladies dressing in a way that honors God.

[Adara]

CelticRose wrote:
Um, I like the 2nd skirt but sad experience has taught that a lap full of children will have it up round my hips in no time (definitely NOT modest) & a stiff breeze will do the same.

Understood! :)

This is why I wear warm leggings (winter) or lightweight cotton bloomers (summer) underneath.

[CelticRose]

Do you make your bloomers? They don't even make those to go with sports uniforms the way they used to. I haven't seen any of those in years.

[oliveplants]

Okay, I tried not to join this discussion, but I can't help it anymore! (laughing at myself for being silly and no one notices anyway)

I have to say, I agree that 'baggy' pants (at least straight leg, not clingy pants) with a long shirt can be very modest, and even feminine. In some situations they may be better than a dress/skirt.

I chose to wear dresses because I find that a good mixture of modesty, prettiness, and distinctly feminine in Western culture.

There are skirts that appear modest at the store, but once worn prove otherwise (as I am learning at some expense). Anything silky/rayon etc will ride up and flutter in the breeze and get big nasty spots with any wetness. But they are 'pretty.' I try to find denim, courderoy (how does one spell that?), or just heavy cotton that is full enough to sit "indian style" in, but not so full that it catches every breath of wind.

On very windy days, or if I have to be up a ladder or something, I will put on shorts or leggings under my skirt to keep things in order.

I tend young children, do household chores, and have gardened in a skirt (oh, and jump on the trampoline!). One does get used to it.

PS. Cool! I typed this out a couple hours ago, but CF went funky on me. I copied it before the page went blank, and it was stil there to paste.

[CelticRose]

I thought Adara & Danfrey were doing very well without my input but it was an irrestible temptation to stick my nose in. There are so many lovely dresses/skirts out there & I so admire women who can wear them well. I just look like I've been tied together with string & sticky-tape. Sometimes that's almost literally true when the kids have been busier than usual with the crafty thing & I find odd bits of my clothing gummed together. I'm afraid I dress for practacality first.

[Adara]

Do you make your bloomers?

*Guilty look* I'll have to admit it -- even though I can sew, I haven't made my own from scratch yet. (There are loads of patterns to be had online, however.) Instead, I use modified workout pants, cotton pajama bottoms and even capris shorts for my modern-day bloomers. This approach might not work for every body type, but it has served me well.

It should be pointed out that there are companies that still make bloomers. Google "BLOOMERS" and you'll see what I mean.

[oliveplants]

CR, I hope you don't think I was "preaching at" you. Believe me, I know how frumpy a dress can get! Seems like a good rule of thumb is the fancier it is to begin with, the worse it looks when the children are done with you.

I just wanted to share what I do, don't mean to imply that's what others must do. Really, I think if we have godly husbands, it is enough that we dress to please them.

[CelticRose]

Not at all Oliveplants. I'm just a dag. No matter what I do I look like a regular bag lady. It so happens I have better success with pants & shirts than skirts & dresses & as hubby doesn't mind that's what I do. One of my daughters loves her dresses & we have other issues with her. She is very artistic & fashion conscious & getting her to tone it down & stick to our modesty rules (no plunging necklines, no bare mid-riffs, no mini anythings) is more of an issue but as I still hold her purse strings she is obligated to fall into line or have me buy her clothing for her without her input.

[CFpetRESCUER9]

I'm not anabaptist...But I read through this thread (over a few days!) and just wanted to say that I really appreciate your opinions/ideas on this. I've learned a lot!

[Danfrey]

Ladies,

I appreciate you allowing me to have input in what would normally be a discussion for women. One of the highlights of coming to a new understanding of the faith with my wife was helping her discover modesty. I actually taught her how to sew and spent most of the night before we visited one of our first Mennonite churches helping her sew a capedress. We gained great pleasure discovering it together. I am encouraged by the positive attitude shown on here by Godly women. I hope that there will be some to influence my daughter in our faith community as she matures.

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by Romans 12
...do not be conformed to this world

The clothes the Anabaptists wear are not like those I wear; neither are either the same that Jesus and Paul wore. Certainly Anabaptists have legal ownership of their lands and property just as I; however, it is without doubt such was not the case for Jesus, Paul or the other NT writers and personages of note. I do not believe the central phrase in the verse refers to outward appearance but, rather, the inward condition. Many lose sight of the fact that it is not money that is the root of all evil but that it is the love of money that is the downfall. So it is with everything, with anything that our hearts covet above that of Jesus Christ. To allow our Saviour to be superseded by such IS to be conformed to this world regardless of what we wear, own or possess. Certainly it is not the Lord's wish we remain poor and look drab in a world of fashion and style. Nor were we intended to be the epitome of poverty when we claim the mantle of spiritual kingship offspring. Kind of a contradiction in terms. Certainly preaching one thing and looking like another is not going to add to the ease of finding wiling converts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Tim 2
women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing

This and the following verse seem stacked in favor of men seeing it is only the women that are mentioned. Come to think of it, are there any verses saying the same to men? And, if not, why specifically the women? Is there a two thousand year old cultural reason (the "Proverbs woman" would seem to deny this in some fashion or degree)? Or is there some other reason regarding the woman's differential psychological makeup? If the verse is in reference to enhanced beauty and the inherent seductiveness regarding on looking males then we must look toward male weaknesses in this regard which brings their psychological makeup into question. I do not see this verse (and similar as the following verse) being strictly for the women to the exclusion of men with respect to not being conformed to this world; it would seem there is more here than is typically thought so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Pet 3
Do not let your adornment be merely outward


This goes back to my original comment on the first verse regarding the inner condition of the heart. It also ties in with the second verse regarding seductiveness; plus, all three verses bring into play the concept of vanity which points to pride but not just pride, rather, means empty pride and is reminiscent of the masks such as worn in theaters in William Shakespeare's time from which the word hypocrite evolved into for the masks, just as mascara (putting on "a face"), vanity and empty pride all refer to something one is, essentially, not. If we are to be true to our God and Lord and Saviour we must first be true to ourselves.

[Danfrey]

Certainly it is not the Lord's wish we remain poor and look drab in a world of fashion and style. Nor were we intended to be the epitome of poverty when we claim the mantle of spiritual kingship offspring.

1 Peter 3

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

1 Tim 2

9In 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; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.



These verses clearly are speaking of an issue of the heart, but from them one can conclude that to contradict them outwardly is the result of an inward deficiency.



The cultural argument comes up when one discusses issues of dress and modesty, but the Roman culture was not much different than ours when it came to style and modesty. Romans had many of the same decorations we have today. There were fancy materials and dyes that produced clothing that as Clement of Alexandria said "Such clothing is for look at, not for covering." Stylish clothing, cosmetics and fashion are nothing new. They were problems when the New Testament was written just as they are today. It was in this setting that both Peter and Paul told Christian women to adorn themselves with modesty and simplicity.


Addressing the issue of why these things were written to ladies and not to men, I have a few ideas. If attitudes were similar in 60ad as they are today, woman would have been more likely to be swept away in the tide of fashion and style than men. You don't see too many beer bellied women watching football in their sweats and a dirty T-shirt. Also, it is commonly understood that men are visually stimulated much more than women. One can say that this is the man's problem and not the ladies, but as Christians we are supposed to consider others before ourselves.


One important point to note is that early Christians addressed men's attire as well as womens attire. They obviously considered the teachings of modesty and simplicity to apply to men as well as ladies. In Clement's writings he critisizes the effimenant dress of men. This is an issue that rampant in the American man.

It is important how we respond to these issues. As I have said before, I don't believe we should legislate dress. This does nothing but create resentment and followers of guidelines rather than followers of Christ. We need to be teaching the concepts of modesty and simplicity in the home and church. When it comes to application, there is nothing wrong with discussing it, but the decision must be made by the person wearing the clothes. The worst thing we can do is keep teaching the attitude of "It doesn't matter what you wear because God looks on the heart" This has been used as an excuse for far too long.

[HypoTypoSis]

as Christians we are supposed to consider others before ourselves.
One important point to note is that early Christians addressed men's attire as well as womens attire. They obviously considered the teachings of modesty and simplicity to apply to men as well as ladies.
The worst thing we can do is keep teaching the attitude of "It doesn't matter what you wear because God looks on the heart"
All good rulers, whether of the house and home, a nation, as an employer or as a pastor, know their effectiveness as a good ruler and how well their subjects submit to them is predicated on how well they serve those beneath them. That being said, the case then becomes one of the ruler considering others first, before considering their own selves and before those they serve submit to they themselves.
I've yet to find anything in scripture that specifically points to men's attire, modesty and simplicity; especially, when compared to what is spoken of regarding women. If you are aware of any passages I would certainly welcome them.
If one's heart is in the right place it matters not what the outward appearance is. If the Lord has blessed someone richly who is to say they are not enjoy those blessings?

[Danfrey]

All good rulers, whether of the house and home, a nation, as an employer or as a pastor, know their effectiveness as a good ruler and how well their subjects submit to them is predicated on how well they serve those beneath them. That being said, the case then becomes one of the ruler considering others first, before considering their own selves and before those they serve submit to they themselves.
I've yet to find anything in scripture that specifically points to men's attire, modesty and simplicity; especially, when compared to what is spoken of regarding women. If you are aware of any passages I would certainly welcome them.
If one's heart is in the right place it matters not what the outward appearance is. If the Lord has blessed someone richly who is to say they are not enjoy those blessings?

1. I am reading this as an agreement. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. I specifically said that the early Christians addressed men's attire in response to scripture. If you would like the quotes from the early Christians, I would be glad to supply them.

3. If one's heart is in the right place, they will not violate scriptural teachings on attire. Scripture specifically forbids costly apparel.

I have to ask a few questions in response to this one....
- Is my heart in the right place if I wear something that I know will cause a sister to stumble?
- Is my daughter's heart in the right place if she wears clothing that will be a temptation to the teenage boys at church?
- Is my heart in the right place if I wear costly apparel while my brothers and sisters while those around me are going without.

As far as being blessed richly, the scripture addresses that very specifically.

Matt 6
19 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;
20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matt 17
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For shoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels and tehn He will reward each according to his works.

Matt 19
23 Then Jesus said to Hiss disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 And agian I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

As far as I read in scripture, riches are not so much a blessing as they are a heavy responsibility. They are not given so that someone can indulge their flesh. They are given so that one may help others in need.

Let me end by saying that I am not perfect in this area. I struggle with the desire to wear fashionable clothing. I don't consider others before myself as much as often as I should. I indulge the flesh with my purchases, using my income as if it where mine and not God's. Although I struggle with these and many issues, it doesn't change the Biblical teaching on them.

[brother daniel]

I've yet to find anything in scripture that specifically points to men's attire, modesty and simplicity; especially, when compared to what is spoken of regarding women. If you are aware of any passages I would certainly welcome them.


I consider this following comment by Jesus as applying to all of us who are his disciples.

He was a experianced carpenter who gave up his trade and status to live as a poor man without any outward appealing props or signs of rank or accomplishment.

Mat 23:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=23&verse=5&version=kjv)But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,


Jam 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jam/Jam005.html#2) Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten


If one's heart is in the right place it matters not what the outward appearance is. If the Lord has blessed someone richly who is to say they are not enjoy those blessings?


When we are blessed richly is it for ourselves alone or can it be shared with another who has not yet been blessed as richly. What greater enjoyment can we get than sharing with another.

I personly am of the old school of discipleship.
I like to see my wife and sisters with head covered and wearing modest long dresses.

Amongst the brothers, I see sharing any coat, shirt or garment that fits.

Wives sometimes react to this kind of sharing by the brothers

I have been part of a disciples community where every brother and sister had high quality clothing and tools.

Act 2:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act002.html#44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;


Act 4:32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act004.html#32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common .

I dont judge who is saved, but this is what I expect when dwelling and laboring with brethren.
When we are poor we are all poor together. When we are abounding its all together.

It is the way of Jesus and his disciples. It hasnt changed with time.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

[Adara]

I like to see my wife and sisters with head covered and wearing modest long dresses.

...and I like to see married men wearing beards and hats, but I don't take offense if they do not. I dress the way I do because it was something God put in my heart to do, not because I felt it legal or proper or that it makes me somehow more Christian than anyone else.

As for sharing shirts -- who does the laundry? Perhaps this is why the women react? *smile*

HypoTypoSis is right, in that it IS the inside that counts -- but God doesn't just leave us "as is". He nudges us, takes us further. For some, this might involve an outward change of clothing. For others, a visible sharing of goods. We are all moved, whether in small baby steps or by gigantic bounds, towards who He would have us to be. The question is, are we taking the time to sit still and listen to what He would have us do -- or are we boldly deciding what being "Christian" means all by ourselves?

[HypoTypoSis]

There will always be those less fortunate than others.
Thus if all should be shared equally then 'plain' is ultimately determined by the least fashionable among us.
Ergo that being the case then by all rights we should all still be wearing fig leaves.

[brother daniel]

There will always be those less fortunate than others.
Thus if all should be shared equally then 'plain' is ultimately determined by the least fashionable among us.
Ergo that being the case then by all rights we should all still be wearing fig leaves.

We, including myself, blunder ahead in these threads without prayer and rememberance of what Jesus teaches.

Mat 6:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat006.html#25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?


Mat 6:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat006.html#31) Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Modesty is a hard concept for American males and females to grasp.

I dont want to be destracted by males or females who are calling attention to themselves, by their clothes or body language.

I have been far to vain in the past and glad for God reducing my outward apperance.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

[CelticRose]

It is not clothing, or hair style, or jewellery that is the problem; things are just things. It's what we do with those things that is the issue. When we use things to draw attention to ourselves, to glorify ourselves, to show off ourselves then it is a problem. How can we glorify God when we blind people with ourselves? This applies as much, if not more so, to clothing as anything else.

[HypoTypoSis]

Mat 6:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat006.html#25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?


Mat 6:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat006.html#31) Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?


Well, I'll admit the above quotes may, at various times, have secondary application for us, the believers, as the situations may so warrant.

However, in our haste to render scriptural passages let's not forget that Jesus was not speaking that to you or me or anyone else today or, for that matter, yesteryear included. He was speaking directly to and for the specific benefit of His disciples.

Back to the modesty and clothing issue, as by way of example, it is not unlikely, considering winters over there, that leather sheepskin coats were considered as utilitarian as they have been so considered here in this day and age.

Obviously, there may well have been poorer people that may have had to go for something less weather and cold resistant, just as there are those here today in the same situation.

Then, again, by today's standards, there are many that will throw a snit fit for 'murdering' sheep to turn their hides into coats just as there are those that will throw an equal snit fit for wearing warm, light weight and waterproof coats made from plastics for ecological and environmental reasons.

Sheepskin is fashioable in its own right to look upon just as all the newer fabrics are. It is no secret that those new fabrics really don't cost anymore for multicolor patterns than a plain drab black or grey color. So where is the problem in something that looks nice, obviously, cost is no issue.

Then, again, if someone was to make a coat at home, regardless of color or pattern and the materials cost $XXX amount of dollars and you say the cost of materials was cheap so it qualifies as being modest have we not forgotten the labor that went into the garment's manufacture? If there was, say, 30 hours at even a "modest" $20/hour figure you're looking at something that will rival anything in the retail stores.

But if the same thing is manufactured in China by children at 20 cents an hour and purchased in Wal-Mart for $39.97 is that still "modest" or must it also be black, grey and drab? And what of the fact that human rights were violated in the garment's manufacture? Is that irrelevent so long as the garment is cheap, grey and drab?

There are too many variables to blanketly say those 'few' passages in scripture spoken 2,000 years ago regarding a time and place and culture, custom and tradition apply identically the same today.

On matters of culture, custom and tradition there is always some wiggle room for personalization and choice.

God did create us with thinking, creating, free will choice endowed wills and brains to expect us, nor does He demand us, to all go around looking, acting, thinking and speaking the same autonomous monotone drab lines. He expects us all to be different one from another.

The big issue is what we do with what gifts we are bequeathed and blessed with.

[Danfrey]

Back to clothing. I would not consider bright colors immodest. When I speak of modesty I am speaking of things like skirts that are too short and mens slacks that fit them like a glove, or shirts unbuttoned down to mid-chest. When I speak of modesty, I speak of covering what is for one's spouse. When it comes to costly apparel, I am speaking of fancy clothing.

Now, also I will have to add that scripture specifically forbids gold, silver?(too lazy to look up) and pearls I believe. Personally, I would extend this to all forms of jewelry.

[brother daniel]

Well, I'll admit the above quotes may, at various times, have secondary application for us, the believers, as the situations may so warrant.

However, in our haste to render scriptural passages let's not forget that Jesus was not speaking that to you or me or anyone else today or, for that matter, yesteryear included. He was speaking directly to and for the specific benefit of His disciples.

It is here where we differ.

Jesus Christ is always speaking to his disciples TODAY.

Hbr 13:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr013.html#8) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The same message was understood by the Waldensiens of the 13th century, the Swiss Brethren of the 15th century and the California Jesus People in the 20th century.

When we do it, it brings forth good fruit and we are persecuted by those who dont agree.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

[catlover]

Back to clothing. I would not consider bright colors immodest. When I speak of modesty I am speaking of things like skirts that are too short and mens slacks that fit them like a glove, or shirts unbuttoned down to mid-chest. When I speak of modesty, I speak of covering what is for one's spouse. When it comes to costly apparel, I am speaking of fancy clothing.

Now, also I will have to add that scripture specifically forbids gold, silver?(too lazy to look up) and pearls I believe. Personally, I would extend this to all forms of jewelry.

Danfrey how exactly did you teach your daughter to sew? I would like to get into sewing with my daughter and wonder if a beginners book with simple sewing machine would be a good start.

As it stands now, a nice lady up the road makes simple skirts for her. All that is required for these skirts is:material,elastic, and an old skirt.

Of course the skirt patterns aren't really simple, one of her skirts has cats on it.

[catlover]

I'm not anabaptist...But I read through this thread (over a few days!) and just wanted to say that I really appreciate your opinions/ideas on this. I've learned a lot!

Do you sew?

What do you think of some of the clothing that is marketed towards your age group?

[brother daniel]

Danfrey how exactly did you teach your daughter to sew? I would like to get into sewing with my daughter and wonder if a beginners book with simple sewing machine would be a good start.

As it stands now, a nice lady up the road makes simple skirts for her. All that is required for these skirts is:material,elastic, and an old skirt.

Of course the skirt patterns aren't really simple, one of her skirts has cats on it.

MY aunt Francis. TAUGHT me to saw when I was 10 years old. She was teaching my 8 year old cousin Bill and I how to cook in the kitchen of "High Masa Ranch."

Before she showed us the way around her country kitchen, she required us both to make aprons and hem them by hand,

She showed us how to thread the needle and make basic stitches .

From the mother of a high school girl friend I learned to take apart a garmet, and cut a pattern for a new garmet by hand. A sewing machine helps.

With love
brother daniel

[christian73]

Back to clothing. I would not consider bright colors immodest. When I speak of modesty I am speaking of things like skirts that are too short and mens slacks that fit them like a glove, or shirts unbuttoned down to mid-chest. When I speak of modesty, I speak of covering what is for one's spouse. When it comes to costly apparel, I am speaking of fancy clothing.

Now, also I will have to add that scripture specifically forbids gold, silver?(too lazy to look up) and pearls I believe. Personally, I would extend this to all forms of jewelry.
Would you share some scripture to that effect?

[brother daniel]

MY aunt Francis. TAUGHT me to saw when I was 10 years old. She was teaching my 8 year old cousin Bill and I how to cook in the kitchen of "High Masa Ranch."

Before she showed us the way around her country kitchen, she required us both to make aprons and hem them by hand,

She showed us how to thread the needle and make basic stitches .

From the mother of a high school girl friend I learned to take apart a garmet, and cut a pattern for a new garmet by hand. A sewing machine helps.

With love
brother daniel

But back to the subject of modesty.

with love in Christ
brother daniel

[Danfrey]

Danfrey how exactly did you teach your daughter to sew? I would like to get into sewing with my daughter and wonder if a beginners book with simple sewing machine would be a good start.

As it stands now, a nice lady up the road makes simple skirts for her. All that is required for these skirts is:material,elastic, and an old skirt.

Of course the skirt patterns aren't really simple, one of her skirts has cats on it.
I would definately suggest a sewing machine. You can pick up a simple zig-zag machine for about a hundred dollars. Maybe you could even find a less expensive one in a thrift store, vacuum cleaner store, or fabric store. There are patterns by McCalls and Simplicity that are made for beginners and can be sewn in a couple of hours. The hardest part is cutting out the pieces of material.

My daughter actually was taught by one of the young ladies at the camp were we lived. I taught me wife the basics though. I picked up a bit of experience sewing patches on my uniforms when I was in the Air Force. Once you are able to work the machine without being afraid of it, the rest will come with practice. My work tends to be a little sloppy, but I enjoy it anyway. Kiara and I have been talking about making some clothing together. She is more apt to wear skirts if she sewed them herself.

Be sure to pick up a beginners book that covers adjusting the tension on a sewing machine. This will safe you a lot of headaches.

Happy Sewing

[Danfrey]

Would you share some scripture to that effect?

The first post of this thread covers a few quotes that reference what I am speaking of. I will include them again since the thread has become so long.


9In 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; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.





3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:





Here we see Gold and Pearls specifically mentioned. I wasn't sure about the silver part when I posted my last post which is why I put the question mark next to it. I would personally extend this teaching to all forms of jewelry, but that is for my family only. I would not try to force it on anyone else. Many will try to find only a spiritual concept in these verses and deny that they have literal application, but they read very clear to me and to several of the early church writers.


As far as the concept of what modesty is, I am using my own judgement here combined with the idea that to look upon a woman with lust is the same as adultery. The Bible doesn't clearly spell out what modesty is, but there are writings from the first couple of centuries of the church that touch on the subject in more detail.




When we discuss clothing, I guess the real issue is "What is the purpose of clothing". For the Christian, the purpose of clothing is to cover the body and protect from the elements. Anything that goes beyond that starts getting into the area of pride. There is a concept that Anabaptists spoke about in thier earlier days called "dying to self". This is something we could all use a little more practice at. My "self" loves to wear nice clothing that looks good, but honestly all it serves to do is feed my ego, and take it from me. My ego usually needs to attending weight watchers.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I didn't notice anyone mentioning what Yahshua or someone else in Yahweh's Word said about "suit and ties" :) ....
and vagabonds and misfits :) .....

[tulc]

I didn't notice anyone mentioning what Yahshua or someone else in Yahweh's Word said about "suit and ties" :) ....
and vagabonds and misfits :) .....

well considering the threads almost two years old I'm suprised anyone noticed anything at all. :sorry:
tulc(ahhh zombie threads, gotta love them!) ;)

[MrJim]

well considering the threads almost two years old I'm suprised anyone noticed anything at all. :sorry:
tulc(ahhh zombie threads, gotta love them!) ;)

zombie threads~Liz calls it thread necromancy...I think it's more like a resurrectionhttp://bestsmileys.com/dead/1.gif http://bestsmileys.com/ghost/2.gif

[tulc]

zombie threads~Liz calls it thread necromancy...I think it's more like a resurrectionhttp://bestsmileys.com/dead/1.gif http://bestsmileys.com/ghost/2.gif

"Resurrection" That sounds about right! ;)
tulc(and there's less brain eating involved then a zombie thread!) :D

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I consider this following comment by Jesus as applying to all of us who are his disciples.

He was a experianced carpenter who gave up his trade and status to live as a poor man without any outward appealing props or signs of rank or accomplishment.

Mat 23:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=23&verse=5&version=kjv)But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,


Jam 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jam/Jam005.html#2) Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten



When we are blessed richly is it for ourselves alone or can it be shared with another who has not yet been blessed as richly. What greater enjoyment can we get than sharing with another.

I personly am of the old school of discipleship.
I like to see my wife and sisters with head covered and wearing modest long dresses.

Amongst the brothers, I see sharing any coat, shirt or garment that fits.

Wives sometimes react to this kind of sharing by the brothers

I have been part of a disciples community where every brother and sister had high quality clothing and tools.

Act 2:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act002.html#44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;


Act 4:32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act004.html#32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common .

I dont judge who is saved, but this is what I expect when dwelling and laboring with brethren.
When we are poor we are all poor together. When we are abounding its all together.

It is the way of Jesus and his disciples. It hasnt changed with time.

With love in Christ
brother daniel



I missed this , or don't remember reading it,
how far from tulsa are you ?
email if you can.

[tulc]

I missed this , or don't remember reading it,
how far from tulsa are you ?
email if you can.

According to his profile brother daniel hasn't posted since 2007, so it might be a while before he gets back to you. :sorry:
tulc(didn't want you to feel he was ignoring you) :)