Poll: Modesty

[Ernie]

Vote and discuss.

If a poll option could be tweaked in a way that you could vote for it, you can suggest a rewording.


In this thread...

Please do not write about fetishes, nor go into graphic detail about immodest practices, nor scorn those who attempt to be modest in ways that you do not think is necessary.

[Josh]

I would add:

“ 4. Modesty includes wearing loose clothing and clothing that helps conceal a person's figure”

What meets this criteria is subjective and there should be forbearance with someone in a different culture / type of church who thinks differently.

I would also add:

“11. Women should be taught that whilst they should not try to make men lust after them, they are not responsible if men choose to lust after them and otherwise behave sinfully towards them. In particular, when a Christian man falls into sin with a woman, a woman should not be made to feel ‘you made him do this’. Every member should be taught to possess their own vessel.”

[Ernie]

“11. Women should be taught that whilst they should not try to make men lust after them, they are not responsible if men choose to lust after them and otherwise behave sinfully towards them. In particular, when a Christian man falls into sin with a woman, a woman should not be made to feel ‘you made him do this’. Every member should be taught to possess their own vessel.”

I like this.

[Neto]

I hesitated on #6.

6. Some ideas and values in life can be arrived at intuitively or by observation, and the Bible does not need to specifically address it, in order for the thing to be true or good. (However, we should not make such conclusions equal with the teaching we find in the Bible.)

What does it mean to hold to a teaching, but not put it on par with teaching of Scripture? Does this mean that it is to be represented as:
a.) a secondary doctrine?
b.) an application of a Biblical principle, either by direct application at the primary level, or as a secondary application?
c.) an item in the congregation's guidelines?
d.) an appeal from the pulpit, or in private conversation?

If the common expression "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and conduct" is true, then how does this mesh with the idea of adding things which we feel are 'valid inferences"?

[Josh]

I hesitated on #6.

6. Some ideas and values in life can be arrived at intuitively or by observation, and the Bible does not need to specifically address it, in order for the thing to be true or good. (However, we should not make such conclusions equal with the teaching we find in the Bible.)

What does it mean to hold to a teaching, but not put it on par with teaching of Scripture? Does this mean that it is to be represented as:
a.) a secondary doctrine?
b.) an application of a Biblical principle, either by direct application at the primary level, or as a secondary application?
c.) an item in the congregation's guidelines?
d.) an appeal from the pulpit, or in private conversation?

If the common expression "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and conduct" is true, then how does this mesh with the idea of adding things which we feel are 'valid inferences"?

An example is teaching against using drugs like heroin. The Biboe doesn’t directly teach that. It is instead (c), something a congregation discerns as secondary applications come in. (Maybe a case could be made for (b), but I would hesitate to say, for example, Christian missionaries would need to mandate not chewing khat, coca leaves, etc. anymore than Americans should quit drinking sugary sodas.)

[MaxPC]

“11. Women should be taught that whilst they should not try to make men lust after them, they are not responsible if men choose to lust after them and otherwise behave sinfully towards them. In particular, when a Christian man falls into sin with a woman, a woman should not be made to feel ‘you made him do this’. Every member should be taught to possess their own vessel.”

I like this.

Likewise.

I hesitated on #6.

6. Some ideas and values in life can be arrived at intuitively or by observation, and the Bible does not need to specifically address it, in order for the thing to be true or good. (However, we should not make such conclusions equal with the teaching we find in the Bible.)

What does it mean to hold to a teaching, but not put it on par with teaching of Scripture? Does this mean that it is to be represented as:
a.) a secondary doctrine?
b.) an application of a Biblical principle, either by direct application at the primary level, or as a secondary application?
c.) an item in the congregation's guidelines?
d.) an appeal from the pulpit, or in private conversation?

If the common expression "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and conduct" is true, then how does this mesh with the idea of adding things which we feel are 'valid inferences"?

An example is teaching against using drugs like heroin. The Biboe doesn’t directly teach that. It is instead (c), something a congregation discerns as secondary applications come in. (Maybe a case could be made for (b), but I would hesitate to say, for example, Christian missionaries would need to mandate not chewing khat, coca leaves, etc. anymore than Americans should quit drinking sugary sodas.)

I too hesitated a bit as there are Scriptures that can be applied through deductive reasoning. There are things not mentioned in the Bible (e.g. newer tech) yet, the behaviors that are involved with that tech can be deductively evaluated from Scripture.

[Sudsy]

Other - modesty is not drawing attention to oneself. This attention can be done by appearing different from your culture by what you wear or drawing attention by conforming to the culture. Pride can be what is the root cause of immodest behaviour.

[RZehr]

Other - modesty is not drawing attention to oneself. This attention can be done by appearing different from your culture by what you wear or drawing attention by conforming to the culture. Pride can be what is the root cause of immodest behaviour.

Attracting attention for good reasons is fine.
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

[GoodGirl]

Before we became plain, we discussed how on earth plain dress could be modest~ with the attention it attracted.

We lived on the west coast & soon started dressing plain (what it meant to us 15 years ago- long skirts, very simple head coverings, etc) and we were started at, openly commented on, and followed to our vehicle with questions so often we kept cases of books in the back to hand out.

The books were: “The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down” by David Bercot, “Through the Eye of a Needle” by Roger Hertzler, and the workbook “The Faith Worth Dying For.”

Where we live now, we can dress plain as we want & no one bats an eye.

[Sudsy]

Other - modesty is not drawing attention to oneself. This attention can be done by appearing different from your culture by what you wear or drawing attention by conforming to the culture. Pride can be what is the root cause of immodest behaviour.

Attracting attention for good reasons is fine.
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Yes, if they ultimately attract attention to the Saviour and not ourselves. So are these good deeds not mercy and charity and sharing the Gospel which, as the verse says, will bring glory to your Father in heaven ? Scripture says we are to be zealous on doing good deeds so it's important to know what these are.

I believe if we are really doing the good deeds Jesus is speaking about they will be a light that draws people to Him. Are the good deeds that we do drawing people to the Lord or are these good deeds not and possibly could be driving people away from the Saviour ?