dress code

[rumpelstiltskin]

Dear Tad:

The "long hair" of I Cor. 11:14 is not speaking solely of "long" hair, but, tressed hair or tresses, ringlets of curled hair, or tufts.

It is much the same principle as with you question regarding women wearing jeans or pants. The Scriptures tell us that men should not wear "what pertains to a woman" and women should not wear "what pertains to a man." But what pertains to a woman and what pertains to a man? Are skirts solely a woman's apparel while long pants solely a man's apparel?

Women have worn "pants" for thousands of year and men have worn skirts (and still do in Scotland during festive occasions). It is not the item so much as the intent of the item. Mrs. Bush our First Lady wears long pants all the time and she looks quite nice and feminine. And I hardly think that anyone would consider the rough and tough firemen of New York to be feminine in their "skirts" when they perform as a bagpipe unit.

But one can wear long and curly tufted hair to APPEAR feminine as a woman, and that certain is not becoming a man. Likewise a woman can wear a crew cut which likewise is unbecoming.

Such articles as feminine makeup, panties, and high-heeled shoes are definitely feminine and should not be worn by men. Gays and queers dress in ways that SHAME their gender.


It may be proper for a church to have a "dress code" for different church functions. The problem could be, however, that these codes go to the extreme. Most men would agree that a woman is much more sexy in a short skirt and high heels than in jeans and tennies, wouldn't you agree?  Maybe this thing of proper dress can be likened to the judge who said, "I don't know how to precisely define pornography, BUT I SURE KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT"!

God be with you,

Ray

I wonder what year Ray wrote that!. I agree but personally with fashion these days I think woman look even better in Jeans or pants than skirts. But I guess that's just me.

[noeleena]

Hi.

& who are the dress police now & who has the right to say what any one can or not wear & when  . this is all of man  no . so whats it really about , whats the underlieing details preferance to what one likes or being told to wear.

Ill  put this in the mix for some one who is intersexed what then should that person wear as they are nether male or female or both.  & make no mistake im both. so my brain is wired both male & female.  so your getting in to my terrtory  so i dont come under ether.  & i can wear ether . i figgered that this would be a good time to point this out .

You see many of us are different & when we were born & the reasons dont matter we are different we think differently & do things differently tho many of us do not fall in the same line for some as a male or a female /  woman.  now this then changes the dynamics dont you think.
& who has the right to ....tell us .....what we should wear,   to please man , The Lord has no probs so why should man.

Now what skirt or Kilt will i wear.. he he ...  at least have a laugh.

...noeleena...

[rumpelstiltskin]

Hello Noeleena
I'm the last person to ask about fashion, I know nothing about it. I was commenting on the second last comment of Ray's,and meaning woman look fine whatever they wear, and the fashion industry is huge now. I don't care what you wear, its none of my business. The point of Ray's email was the intent, and not the clothing.
Peace

[Craig]

We need to see the whole email to get the context of Ray's reply.

Dear Bro. Smith,

I have two questions, each one on a separate subject.

1) Could you please explain what 1 Corinthians 11:14 means? Does this mean it is a sin for a man to have long hair? Is this symbolic. I personally prefer to keep my hair short, and I will not fall out with a Christian brother with long hair. Does my church or youth camp have the right or authority to require the men who hold positions of authority (Teachers, elders, deacons, choir members, children and youth workers, etc) to keep their hair short and stay clean shaven?

2) My wife and I are having a disagreement with another couple at church. These people are dear friends of ours.  The church we attend has a particular dress code for services and extra church activities for it's members. We do not judge visitors who may not dress according to code. Part of the dress code states that females can only wear dresses or skirts. This where the disagreement comes in. My wife abides by the dress code, while on church time (at service and on church activities). However, she likes to wear modest jeans and pants at home on our own time. The other couple claims that she is a hypocrite because she dresses one way at church and another everywhere else. Could you give us some biblical insight to which side of the argument is correct?

I look forward to hearing from you

YOURS FAITHFULLY

TAD

Marques gave a good reply in an earlier thread.

This is an issue that takes spiritual maturity to see the intent of what Paul is commanding. Paul made reference of this sinful action in the same epistle to the church of Corinth:

1 Cor 6:9-11  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

From Paul's words we see that this church had those who were 'effeminate' ['such were some of YOU']...effeminate in the Greek means 'soft to the touch'. In other words, men that carried themselves like women.

This is the intent of the matter in Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 11...men are not to be 'effeminate' nor or women to carry themselves as men, as God is no respecter of person [Acts 10:34]. We should be able to judge these small matters [1 Cor 6:2] of hair length for men and women by recognizing the intent in the manner...whether it is to present oneself as the opposite gender or style of the time.

Let all things be done in praise of Him...'he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord' [2 Cor 10:17]

Hope this helps,

Marques

Now then, we get the original question and the reason for the answer.  Marques explained well what "sin" those in Corinth were committing.  This sin is no worse or less than any of the sins all of us here bear and endure.  The forum has no "dress code" or "sin code" for that matter.  We are all flawed and will be made new in God's timing.  I for one welcome all to the forum as we all are on the same journey and carry different loads, as long as a member does not try to justify a sin as being just, then we have no problems.  And nobody here does this.  

I welcome those with differing lifestyles and bearing sins that I may not be guilty of, as it gives me a human  element to the sins that I may have just hatefully dismissed at one time in my life.

I can judge sin but I cannot judge the sinner, that is God's job and he will be busy enough judging my sins for me to worry about any of yours.

Craig

PS This type of thread has happened in the past and it usually goes in a thousand directions, gets personal or nasty, causes hard feeling and gets locked.  I thought about locking it but I will let it go, at least for awhile.  So be thoughtful before posting and those of you who have no sin can cast the first stone.

[Samson]

Dear Tad:

The "long hair" of I Cor. 11:14 is not speaking solely of "long" hair, but, tressed hair or tresses, ringlets of curled hair, or tufts.

It is much the same principle as with you question regarding women wearing jeans or pants. The Scriptures tell us that men should not wear "what pertains to a woman" and women should not wear "what pertains to a man." But what pertains to a woman and what pertains to a man? Are skirts solely a woman's apparel while long pants solely a man's apparel?

Women have worn "pants" for thousands of year and men have worn skirts (and still do in Scotland during festive occasions). It is not the item so much as the intent of the item. Mrs. Bush our First Lady wears long pants all the time and she looks quite nice and feminine. And I hardly think that anyone would consider the rough and tough firemen of New York to be feminine in their "skirts" when they perform as a bagpipe unit.

But one can wear long and curly tufted hair to APPEAR feminine as a woman, and that certain is not becoming a man. Likewise a woman can wear a crew cut which likewise is unbecoming.

Such articles as feminine makeup, panties, and high-heeled shoes are definitely feminine and should not be worn by men. Gays and queers dress in ways that SHAME their gender.


It may be proper for a church to have a "dress code" for different church functions. The problem could be, however, that these codes go to the extreme. Most men would agree that a woman is much more sexy in a short skirt and high heels than in jeans and tennies, wouldn't you agree?  Maybe this thing of proper dress can be likened to the judge who said, "I don't know how to precisely define pornography, BUT I SURE KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT"!

God be with you,

Ray

I wonder what year Ray wrote that!. I agree but personally with fashion these days I think woman look even better in Jeans or pants than skirts. But I guess that's just me.

TGN.

I don't particularly know when Ray wrote that response, but it would be wise, on a personal level to not get overly wise Or overly righteous Or overly Legalistic about such matters. And I'm not implying that Your asking for that reason or Your overly anything, but We had a thread last Fall or summer dealing with the Dress aspect part.

Let's emphasize the Spiritual aspect of other Humans, if they have any. What I mean by that. How other people treat us & how they act towards others in their daily lives is most important. As an an illustration: My Wife and I encountered a Bald Headed Woman wearing Pants with a genuine smile and a loving, caring helpful disposition and this was very attractive to Us. This experience was in a Hospital setting and upon leaving My Wife there, I thought to myself that She is in good hands with this bald headed, genuine smiling, very caring Woman with slacks & a okay type shirt.

This illustration is not meant to imply that We shouldn't wash Our hands, dress neatly when appropriate or be an unkempt slob, but the outside appearance can be misleading. Sales People, Managers, Television Evangelists, Politicians, etc USUALLY  present a good exterior appearance, but USUALLY are trying to impress & deceive us to win Our favor and obtain Our Bucks. In My OPINION, only an opinion, If God permitted Satan to manifest himself in the Flesh, He would probably have an attractive suit, be extremely handsome, say the right things to Our face, but beneath the surface of that appealing physical image, He would mask Eyes Full of Adultery(Physical & Spiritual), Deception, Murder(Hate in His Heart) with the motive towards misleading us.

All of the above doesn't imply that everyone that has a clean & attractive appearance is out to mislead us or that someone who's dirty & has long hair should be trusted, but the above is meant to help Us appreciate not to get overly concerned or caught up with someone's appearance, ie- How many earings, length of Hair, wearing a beard, Pants or dresses, how much makeup or lipstick, etc. 

                              Kind Regards, Samson.

[Rene]

The forum has no "dress code" or "sin code" for that matter.  We are all flawed and will be made new in God's timing.  I for one welcome all to the forum as we all are on the same journey and carry different loads, as long as a member does not try to justify a sin as being just, then we have no problems.

Craig

Just worth repeating!

Craig, you actually sound "wise" sometimes.

René

[Samson]

Well I completely agree with Ray that most women look better in a short skirt and high heels.  AMEN!  Thank you Jesus!

I remember it was in the 1960's that I saw my first woman in a miniskirt.  Wow!  It was like my first taste of whiskey.  The world seemed to be a much more interesting place.

My grandfather and I would talk about women.  He told me he dated in the horse and buggy age.  The men would help the ladies out of the carriage, and they would get a glimpse of an ankle under the long skirts they wore.  Now the ankle wasn't bare but covered by a dark stocking.  My grandfather said just a glimpse of the ladies ankle would make the men go crazy.  Men are such pigs.   

Yes , We can be(Men are Pigs), I plead the Fifth, on the grounds that anything I say will most likely incriminate Me. Unfortunately, times have changed, an Ankle just won't cut it,  ,  .

                           Horse & Buggy Days, I probably would have been in less trouble, Samson.

[rumpelstiltskin]

OK, I called the topic "dress code" because that was the name of the email. As I said I was not even commenting on the actual email topic anyway! The post was put in the off topic section for light hearted banter, and I was taking a shot at Ray for not being with the times (in my opinion) MY POST HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING SCRIPTUAL!. I don't give a damn what people wear, its not even the point!

[mmijares]

When I was in the Oneness Pentecostal, ladies' swimwear (or dresscode) should be a shirt with sleeves and below-knee skirt.  Well, I guess right now they have changed the skirt to below-knee pants. 

Sometimes I got a feeling that the church didn't want the girls to enjoy swimming at all.

[longhorn]

I like the word panties.

Longhorn

[rumpelstiltskin]

So did I Longhorn!!
I thought it was Hilarious when Ray talks about men not wearing panties and make up (although he didn't meation nipple chainletts and weird bondage apparatuses). But any way putting lascivious aside, It was those lines of Rays why I posted it in off topic light hearted banter section and only added Rays responce.It wasn't about the actual email topic. By the way thankyou John from Kentucky, you were the only one who seemed to get the post.

[Samson]

OK, I called the topic "dress code" because that was the name of the email. As I said I was not even commenting on the actual email topic anyway! The post was put in the off topic section for light hearted banter, and I was taking a shot at Ray for not being with the times (in my opinion) MY POST HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING SCRIPTUAL!. I don't give a damn what people wear, its not even the point!

TGN,

I apologize if My response offended You. It's true that Off Topic Discussions are for Fun & Banter, but it isn't limited to that, as you must have noticed by previous Threads of the past. I reviewed Your initial Post and saw no indication of any Humor. Perhaps, it's because I don't have much of a sense of Humor & rarely detect Dry Humor. Personally, I don't interpret the criteria of the intended purpose of each Forum section, ie- General Discussions, Off Topic, Testimonies, etc in a "Legalistic" manner, although in regards to General Discussions, I try to keep it close. As an illustration regarding a "Legalistic" view. A Forum rule disallowing Teaching at General Discussions is primarily referring to " A Teaching," not the explaining of information that We learned from the material gleaned from Ray & other information in harmony with this information. Teaching in the sense of helping others learn information contained here is different than someone bringing " A Teaching." I'm quite certain that the Moderators recognize this and "some" Moderators have informed Me on a personal level that they make every effort to avoid being Legalistic or overly Dogmatic, so as to avoid being like Jehovah's Witnesses or like one of the Worldwide Church of God Splinter Groups.

                   Otherwise, My apologies, Samson.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Hello sampson
You have absolutly nothing to apologize for, I am in no way offended by your post, Im not even offended by Noeleena's. God know's I had no intention of offending anyone and apologize myself if I did, but water of a ducks back. I thought your post was good sampson.   
Peace

[rumpelstiltskin]

I just thought of something; Now thanks to me (T.G.N) the phrases "nipple chainlettes" and "bondage apparatuses" is going to be in the bibletruths forum search engine! Sorry forum sorry moderaters.