My Brother's keeper?

[Guest lnj]

That question is for Butero about the Kilt and the Scots.

[bethshemaiah]

Are you telling me I was WRONG to wear pants for practicality and modesty's sake?

I don't believe women should wear pants, period. The alternative would be long dresses. I don't endorse it, but it would be preferable for a woman to wear something on under a dress or skirt than to simply wear pants or shorts. I have some reservations because this would still possibly involve wearing something pertaining to the opposite sex, though it would go unseen, but it is a possible compromise if modesty would have otherwise been impossible.

wow so now not only should we only wear dresses, but since the dresses can be somewhat revealing we should "add" another layer underneath, would this be like tights or nylons since generally they do not "pertain" to the opposite sex? You really ought to try wearing this stuff for one day, you might change your tune. I love Jesus Christ, I am modest but stylish and rarely let me backside show by wearing a sleeveless shirt underneath another top that covers me. This can be done very stylishly, works in the business world and in church. I really clearly think that modesty is not the issue in this, it is controlling women, I know of other cultures that do that......................

[Floatingaxe]

But it is a fascinating debate.

For example women wearing a head covering in worship. Fiosh I know that in conservative Catholic parishes this is done particularly outside of the US.

On the pants though, Butero I understand where you are coming from, I think you have some scripture on this, but I wonder how it would apply to life in general? What I mean is that many women I know, particularly those that live and work on farms, have to wear pants; dresses just don't cut it unless you want to get hurt. We hunt with some couples and none of the women would even consider wearing dresses, it is relatively nutty for a variety of activities women could do. How about things like gardening, just everyday living requires pants often for women.

So when you say dresses only as being acceptable, are you speaking of in worship, or all of the time? I think you could make a case that in the time of Christ many women who worked the fields and tended livestock, did not wear dresses.

I know of women from Conservative Baptist and Pentecostal Churches that do their gardening and housework in a dress. At one time, this was very common. In Jesus' day, I don't believe any women wore pants.

Because they didn't EXIST! Even for men! Give me a break, man.

[Floatingaxe]

Pixy, I don't want to get crude either, so I will put this as best I can, but women's anatomy can be seen in an immodest way when they wear pants as well. That is as far as I will go with this. To me the biggest argument is over the fact that pants traditionally apply to men, and dresses to women. In addition, pants on a woman gives her a more masculine appearance, and a dress on a man makes him look like a sissy.

Traditon? Traditions change. Pants haven;t been around forever. They came into existence at one time. Before that what was there? Who says that they are only for men? Who? God? where in the Bible is that, precisely?

Also, I couldn't look more feminine in pants!

Traditions of men.

These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

Their worship is a farce,

for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.

Be careful.

[Floatingaxe]

Are you telling me I was WRONG to wear pants for practicality and modesty's sake?

I don't believe women should wear pants, period. The alternative would be long dresses. I don't endorse it, but it would be preferable for a woman to wear something on under a dress or skirt than to simply wear pants or shorts. I have some reservations because this would still possibly involve wearing something pertaining to the opposite sex, though it would go unseen, but it is a possible compromise if modesty would have otherwise been impossible.

Typical male agenda...pitiful. Making women adhere to their ideas of modesty, so they don't have to deal with their eye problems. You need to read, "Every Man's Battle."

[Guest lnj]

But it is a fascinating debate.

On the pants though, Butero I understand where you are coming from, I think you have some scripture on this, but I wonder how it would apply to life in general? What I mean is that many women I know, particularly those that live and work on farms, have to wear pants; dresses just don't cut it unless you want to get hurt.

To wear a dress while doing farm work is downright DANGEROUS.

And Butero, when I say God knows My Heart, it isn't some sad, poor excuse...God actually says - He looks at the Heart of man........For out of the Heart, the issues of life flow.....

It's Scriptual and No excuse. I won't be made to feel bad for wearing pants.

[Floatingaxe]

Are you telling me I was WRONG to wear pants for practicality and modesty's sake?

I don't believe women should wear pants, period. The alternative would be long dresses. I don't endorse it, but it would be preferable for a woman to wear something on under a dress or skirt than to simply wear pants or shorts. I have some reservations because this would still possibly involve wearing something pertaining to the opposite sex, though it would go unseen, but it is a possible compromise if modesty would have otherwise been impossible.

wow so now not only should we only wear dresses, but since the dresses can be somewhat revealing we should "add" another layer underneath, would this be like tights or nylons since generally they do not "pertain" to the opposite sex? You really ought to try wearing this stuff for one day, you might change your tune. I love Jesus Christ, I am modest but stylish and rarely let me backside show by wearing a sleeveless shirt underneath another top that covers me. This can be done very stylishly, works in the business world and in church. I really clearly think that modesty is not the issue in this, it is controlling women, I know of other cultures that do that......................

You are so right!

[Guest lnj]

Are you telling me I was WRONG to wear pants for practicality and modesty's sake?

I don't believe women should wear pants, period. The alternative would be long dresses. I don't endorse it, but it would be preferable for a woman to wear something on under a dress or skirt than to simply wear pants or shorts. I have some reservations because this would still possibly involve wearing something pertaining to the opposite sex, though it would go unseen, but it is a possible compromise if modesty would have otherwise been impossible.

wow so now not only should we only wear dresses, but since the dresses can be somewhat revealing we should "add" another layer underneath, would this be like tights or nylons since generally they do not "pertain" to the opposite sex? You really ought to try wearing this stuff for one day, you might change your tune. I love Jesus Christ, I am modest but stylish and rarely let me backside show by wearing a sleeveless shirt underneath another top that covers me. This can be done very stylishly, works in the business world and in church. I really clearly think that modesty is not the issue in this, it is controlling women, I know of other cultures that do that......................

I support you

[TheoMike]

Butero, I see where you are coming from, and it may be a semantic problem. I have ministered in fundamentalist Baptist churches that practice legalism (clothing, etc.) and sincerely believe it is Biblical. A friend of mine, a Baptist preacher, has the same beliefs you have stated here regarding legalism. The problem is that legalism, whether we care to admit it or not, involves the teachings of man, not of God. To say that the NT does not teach against it is flat out incorrect. One of my favorite books on the the life of Paul was written by F.F. Bruce, whose tutelage I was fortunate enough to sit under, is Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, which deals with the subject of Pauline theology. I recommend it for your consideration.

The late Ray Stedman, a great expositor of the Bible, had this to say about legalism:

But legality is one of the favorite weapons of the enemy. He loves to get Christians to be legalistic, for then he has destroyed their enjoyment of the Spirit and he can use them to spread havoc among a generation or a company of believers, and ruin a vital, active, and growing Christian group. That is exactly what happened in Galatia, and is what drew forth the letter to the Galatians from the Apostle Paul. Here was a group of young Christians who had a fantastic beginning. Their response to the preaching of the apostle was heartwarming. They had given themselves totally to Christ. Paul was greatly enthusiastic about this group of growing young Christians. But, after a while, word came to him that legality had set in, legalism was taking its toll. What had been a bright and marvelous testimony of the grace and glory of God was being turned into a dull, apathetic group of religionists -- cold, barren, and empty, almost devoid of spiritual life.

That is what legality will do. Legalism destroys! It did then, and it does the same thing today. I know of no affliction in Christendom which is more widespread, and more devastating in its destructiveness, than this. Across the world today many churches are sunken into a pall of boredom and futility largely because of the legalistic spirit which has throttled their spiritual vitality.

Legalism can also be described as false Christianity because that is essentially what it is. It uses Christian language and biblical terms. It sounds evangelical. It loves to use phrases like "evangelism," "fundamentalism," "biblical literalism," and such. It sounds Christian, and looks Christian, but it is emphatically not true Christianity. It as a spurious fake, an imitation Christianity, an empty, hollow counterfeit of the real thing. It is a burdensome drag upon the spiritual life that creates a sense of bondage and guilt. It is a sickening, nauseating fraud in the eyes of others. God describes it in the Scriptures as a stench in his nostrils. That is what legality really is. We ought not to be proud of it in any degree although, strangely enough, I find Christians boasting of their legalism. They don't call it that, but they nevertheless boast in what is in effect a legalistic spirit. But God does not boast of it. He finds it disgusting. Yet it is so widespread.

The entire text is located at Ray's website, http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/0525.html

I don't like to make a big deal of this, and it really isn't the main purpose of this thread, but there are so many believers stuck in the rut of legalism. As a Christian counselor and preacher, they routinely sit across from me looking to understand why their lives are ineffective for Christ or why their marriage is breaking down when they follow all the rules, etc. I am not at all saying we shouldn't have a standard to live by, but to use OT Scriptures on the Law of Moses, never intended for the Church, to advance teachings on, of all things, hair length and clothing styles is a complete unwarranted use of the Bible. We may make application of those verses in our lives as Christians, but to say we are supposed to actually follow them to the letter is not correct. Why not follow all the Law then, including the dietary laws and such.

As someone correctly pointed out, the law has been fulfilled in us by the Spirit. As believers we are to be guided the Holy Spirit, Who dwells within us. It is His job to convict us and sanctify us. It is something He does in us and for us as we yield our wills to God's. It is not the job of the pastor or the church to set arbitrary rules of salvation or even Christian living. I may, in fact not like fishnet stalkings, and I may ask Marnie not to wear them, but I shouldn't use Scripture, taken out of context, in doing so. I don't actually have a problem with fishnet stalkings, I just thought it was kind of funny. Now, as for those sling back, open toed shoes!

[Guest lnj]

Butero, I see where you are coming from, and it may be a semantic problem. I have ministered in fundamentalist Baptist churches that practice legalism (clothing, etc.) and sincerely believe it is Biblical. A friend of mine, a Baptist preacher, has the same beliefs you have stated here regarding legalism. The problem is that legalism, whether we care to admit it or not, involves the teachings of man, not of God. To say that the NT does not teach against it is flat out incorrect. One of my favorite books on the the life of Paul was written by F.F. Bruce, whose tutelage I was fortunate enough to sit under, is Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, which deals with the subject of Pauline theology. I recommend it for your consideration.

The late Ray Stedman, a great expositor of the Bible, had this to say about legalism:

But legality is one of the favorite weapons of the enemy. He loves to get Christians to be legalistic, for then he has destroyed their enjoyment of the Spirit and he can use them to spread havoc among a generation or a company of believers, and ruin a vital, active, and growing Christian group. That is exactly what happened in Galatia, and is what drew forth the letter to the Galatians from the Apostle Paul. Here was a group of young Christians who had a fantastic beginning. Their response to the preaching of the apostle was heartwarming. They had given themselves totally to Christ. Paul was greatly enthusiastic about this group of growing young Christians. But, after a while, word came to him that legality had set in, legalism was taking its toll. What had been a bright and marvelous testimony of the grace and glory of God was being turned into a dull, apathetic group of religionists -- cold, barren, and empty, almost devoid of spiritual life.

That is what legality will do. Legalism destroys! It did then, and it does the same thing today. I know of no affliction in Christendom which is more widespread, and more devastating in its destructiveness, than this. Across the world today many churches are sunken into a pall of boredom and futility largely because of the legalistic spirit which has throttled their spiritual vitality.

Legalism can also be described as false Christianity because that is essentially what it is. It uses Christian language and biblical terms. It sounds evangelical. It loves to use phrases like "evangelism," "fundamentalism," "biblical literalism," and such. It sounds Christian, and looks Christian, but it is emphatically not true Christianity. It as a spurious fake, an imitation Christianity, an empty, hollow counterfeit of the real thing. It is a burdensome drag upon the spiritual life that creates a sense of bondage and guilt. It is a sickening, nauseating fraud in the eyes of others. God describes it in the Scriptures as a stench in his nostrils. That is what legality really is. We ought not to be proud of it in any degree although, strangely enough, I find Christians boasting of their legalism. They don't call it that, but they nevertheless boast in what is in effect a legalistic spirit. But God does not boast of it. He finds it disgusting. Yet it is so widespread.

The entire text is located at Ray's website, http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/0525.html

I don't like to make a big deal of this, and it really isn't the main purpose of this thread, but there are so many believers stuck in the rut of legalism. As a Christian counselor and preacher, they routinely sit across from me looking to understand why their lives are ineffective for Christ or why their marriage is breaking down when they follow all the rules, etc. I am not at all saying we shouldn't have a standard to live by, but to use OT Scriptures on the Law of Moses, never intended for the Church, to advance teachings on, of all things, hair length and clothing styles is a complete unwarranted use of the Bible. We may make application of those verses in our lives as Christians, but to say we are supposed to actually follow them to the letter is not correct. Why not follow all the Law then, including the dietary laws and such.

As someone correctly pointed out, the law has been fulfilled in us by the Spirit. As believers we are to be guided the Holy Spirit, Who dwells within us. It is His job to convict us and sanctify us. It is something He does in us and for us as we yield our wills to God's. It is not the job of the pastor or the church to set arbitrary rules of salvation or even Christian living. I may, in fact not like fishnet stalkings, and I may ask Marnie not to wear them, but I shouldn't use Scripture, taken out of context, in doing so. I don't actually have a problem with fishnet stalkings, I just thought it was kind of funny. Now, as for those sling back, open toed shoes!

Well explained.....Legalism in Christianity has alot to answer for.......