- Sep 2, 2007
- 5,571
- 595
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I wanted to add my rants to the "Is there a Pentecostal dress code" thread in the Pentecostal forum, but since I don't hold to all the listed Pentecostal beliefs -- specifically that Spirit-baptism necessarily follows salvation, and that tongues is "evidence" of such, initial or otherwise -- I think I am technically not permitted to post in that forum. (Since I saw at least one non-Trinitarian posting there repeatedly, I don't know how strictly the rules are enforced, but for now at least, I'll try to play along.) So, I'll broach the topic here.
I used to attend a Pentecostal church. It was chartered under the Independent Assemblies of God (which is distinct from the "regular" Assemblies of God). Since the IAOGI is explicitly committed to the autonomy of the local church, I'm fairly sure the "holiness" and "modesty" torah of the church I attended reflected the thinking of the pastor, and not the parent organization.
And yes, at that church there was a dress code, but it was not written down. The basic intents were modesty and holiness . So, for example, "social" dancing was discouraged, but we were encouraged to "dance before the Lord" or "dance in the Spirit" What the leadership *expected* regards to those latter ones was essentially the ol' "Pentecostal Two-Step" ; in reality, some of the younger women didn't know the "right" way to dance in church, and so would pretty much shake their stuff as if they were in a club.
In terms of apparel, women who were not directly involved in ministry could wear pretty much anything. It was assumed they would not be displaying cleavage -- front or rear -- or doing something totally idiotic like wearing a see-through shirt with no underwear. I know they were also told "no bare midriffs." Fine. The problem is, not all men are "turned on" by the same things. I happen to find Rose McGowan's hip-curves more attractive than Alyssa Milano's cleavage or belly-button. I'll notice -- and be distracted by -- a pair of athletic but not manly bare arms at least as quickly as by a pair of shapely legs in a short skirt.
There were rules for the men, too. I got a, um, "brief" lecture once for wearing short pants to an evening service.
There were additional and more specific rules for those directly involved in ministry. For Sunday AM service, ushers and greeters were to wear jacket and tie; for evening services, jacket was optional. Women were to wear dresses or skirts. The general principle was "look your best when you go to the house of God," and those involved in ministry were to "lead by example."
(And of course there's the unofficial "T-shirt rule." If you wear a T with any kind of wording on it, it must be some sort of evangelistic or God-praising message, or else you get the stink-eye from all the Maude Flanders Christians.)
This was all well intentioned. It was also futile, silly, and unscriptural.
Modesty is fine. Rules are questionable, at best.
(Col 2:20) If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations,
(Col 2:21) "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"?
(Col 2:22) All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings.
(Col 2:23) These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.
We see the same thing in Galatians. Focus on external rules leads to the works of the flesh. Paying attention to God inside leads to the fruit of the Spirit.
The point is to not be a distraction to others in the assembly. Instead of wasting time piddling with rules about who was showing what, they could have gotten A/C and better fans. Stifling heat is at least as much of a distraction as a glimpse of skin here and there. If you keep the temperature comfy, people will feel less need to wear "abbreviated" clothing.
The "look good when you're in church" and "look especially good if you're serving" things are sadly Old Covenant in perspective. The church building is not the holy Temple; that honor belongs to the people. And the people serving are not some special Levites who are to be set apart by ornate ephods. I always did sort of enjoy dressing a little better when I went to church, just because it was an "outing" of sorts. But I questioned that a bit when guys would come in straight from work, not having had time to change clothes; or when we'd get people of very modest means, who didn't have many clothing options. Adjusting for cultural context, THAT is the point of 1 Tim. 2:9.
Happily, that church was not a "long hair for women, short hair for men" church, nor a "no pants for women" church. Instead of saying what I *really* think of that sort of doctrine (hint: Gal. 5:12), I'll just call it bizarre and unscriptural. On the one hand, they want to carry over Deut. 22:5, even though we are redeemed from the curse of the law. On the other hand, they want to ignore the Nazirite example; those men were exceedingly "holy," and showed it by their long hair.
Ok, rant over.
I used to attend a Pentecostal church. It was chartered under the Independent Assemblies of God (which is distinct from the "regular" Assemblies of God). Since the IAOGI is explicitly committed to the autonomy of the local church, I'm fairly sure the "holiness" and "modesty" torah of the church I attended reflected the thinking of the pastor, and not the parent organization.
And yes, at that church there was a dress code, but it was not written down. The basic intents were modesty and holiness . So, for example, "social" dancing was discouraged, but we were encouraged to "dance before the Lord" or "dance in the Spirit" What the leadership *expected* regards to those latter ones was essentially the ol' "Pentecostal Two-Step" ; in reality, some of the younger women didn't know the "right" way to dance in church, and so would pretty much shake their stuff as if they were in a club.
In terms of apparel, women who were not directly involved in ministry could wear pretty much anything. It was assumed they would not be displaying cleavage -- front or rear -- or doing something totally idiotic like wearing a see-through shirt with no underwear. I know they were also told "no bare midriffs." Fine. The problem is, not all men are "turned on" by the same things. I happen to find Rose McGowan's hip-curves more attractive than Alyssa Milano's cleavage or belly-button. I'll notice -- and be distracted by -- a pair of athletic but not manly bare arms at least as quickly as by a pair of shapely legs in a short skirt.
There were rules for the men, too. I got a, um, "brief" lecture once for wearing short pants to an evening service.
There were additional and more specific rules for those directly involved in ministry. For Sunday AM service, ushers and greeters were to wear jacket and tie; for evening services, jacket was optional. Women were to wear dresses or skirts. The general principle was "look your best when you go to the house of God," and those involved in ministry were to "lead by example."
(And of course there's the unofficial "T-shirt rule." If you wear a T with any kind of wording on it, it must be some sort of evangelistic or God-praising message, or else you get the stink-eye from all the Maude Flanders Christians.)
This was all well intentioned. It was also futile, silly, and unscriptural.
Modesty is fine. Rules are questionable, at best.
(Col 2:20) If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations,
(Col 2:21) "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"?
(Col 2:22) All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings.
(Col 2:23) These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.
We see the same thing in Galatians. Focus on external rules leads to the works of the flesh. Paying attention to God inside leads to the fruit of the Spirit.
The point is to not be a distraction to others in the assembly. Instead of wasting time piddling with rules about who was showing what, they could have gotten A/C and better fans. Stifling heat is at least as much of a distraction as a glimpse of skin here and there. If you keep the temperature comfy, people will feel less need to wear "abbreviated" clothing.
The "look good when you're in church" and "look especially good if you're serving" things are sadly Old Covenant in perspective. The church building is not the holy Temple; that honor belongs to the people. And the people serving are not some special Levites who are to be set apart by ornate ephods. I always did sort of enjoy dressing a little better when I went to church, just because it was an "outing" of sorts. But I questioned that a bit when guys would come in straight from work, not having had time to change clothes; or when we'd get people of very modest means, who didn't have many clothing options. Adjusting for cultural context, THAT is the point of 1 Tim. 2:9.
Happily, that church was not a "long hair for women, short hair for men" church, nor a "no pants for women" church. Instead of saying what I *really* think of that sort of doctrine (hint: Gal. 5:12), I'll just call it bizarre and unscriptural. On the one hand, they want to carry over Deut. 22:5, even though we are redeemed from the curse of the law. On the other hand, they want to ignore the Nazirite example; those men were exceedingly "holy," and showed it by their long hair.
Ok, rant over.
Open mouth, insert foot! 
