Women, pants, KJVO and conservatism

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Dale-c, Dec 18, 2006.

  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone in another thread asked about a link between legalistic dress for women and the KJVO position.
    It does seem that there is a link and I think I can explain.
    First of all, this doesn't always go together and not all who believe either of these are legalists (for that matter, I use the KJV) but there is often a link.

    The problem is that these people are conservatives.
    Now, you may think that being a conservative is a good thing. most christians would consider themselves to be political conservatives but let's look at how that mentality effects these issues.

    The problem here is that people have this type of conservative world view and they are then highly influenced by tradition rather than actual Biblical rule.

    Why do people really want to use the KJV? Because it is traditional. It is the status quo. It is old therefore it is good. after all, in the "good old days" that is what "we used".

    Now I know there are valid reasons and I DO use the KJV but I don't believe that it is the only translation that could ever be the true word of God in english.

    As far as pants, I don't care what you wear.
    But, notice that people will say that 50 years ago or 200 years ago etc, it was a given that men wore pants and women wore dresses. Ok, fine. Now women wear pants and men wear pants. OK. All that proves is two cultural traditions.
    No where in the Bible does it define the specifics of modesty and just what makes up a mans apparel or vice versa.

    I believe the KJV is the best translation in the English language. Do I believe that it is the last truly inspired Word and that all others are automatically rubbish? Of course not.

    If you don't think that women should wear pants, that is within your Christian liberty to do but please do not makes extra Biblical rules for the sake of tradition.
    And most importantly, DO NOT force you opinions that are not backed in the Bible on others.

    Anyone that tries to lay a guilt trip on my wife for things not directly spoken against in the Bible without my consent had better watch out.

    Anyway, I hope that make sense for those who wonder what the link is between the two. It comes down to a worship of tradition.
     
  2. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I asked the question on the other thread because it seems that those who are the most vocal on the ladies-anti-pants issue are also those who are most vocal on the KJVO issue. There seems to be a link between the two, at least from an outsider's point of view.

    It seems that "opinions" take the place of Biblical fact, and this just isn't right. I have an opinion, but just because someone doesn't necessarily agreee, that doesn't make them evil. Now, if we're talking about how you are saved, there is only one way. But if we're talking dress, my opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses. But, I will not force mine on others.

    I guess that's what bothers me - those who try to force me to agree and abide by their opinions.

    BTW-Thanks for the post!
     
    #2 SBCPreacher, Dec 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2006
  3. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    :applause:

    Good post Dale.
     
  4. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    That's an excellent point, Dale. And that concept extends far beyond bible versions and our apparel. There are many, many notions swimming around in our heads that we view as written in stone that are nothing more than traditions of men.

    And it's scary sometimes to admit that and to let go and let God lead for a change.
     
  5. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    This thread has inifinite possibilities for mischief. Please mind your manners.
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    You know what has amazed me in our Bible studies that Barry has here on Wednesday nights? The fact that there is a great deal of what we believe the Bible says about some things which are simply tradition and the Bible does not mention them at all! Some fast ones:
    -- the idea that Mary ever rode in on a donkey
    -- the idea of three Wise Men
    -- the idea that there was no rain before the Flood
    -- the idea that the sticks and rods Jacob peeled were what produced spotted or speckled lambs.

    There are so many more examples of things I have heard for years in sermons, conversations, etc. Not things to do with basic salvation, but so much of the detail stuff the Bible presents gets buried in traditional ways of thinking about it that I think we get some really wrong pictures in our heads.

    It does take trust to go back just to the Bible and be willing to learn all over again, but it's a fascinating trip, too. Sometimes it involves digging into the original languages and sometimes it just means looking at the basic text again to see what it is actually saying.

    I think for many people it is much more comfortable to ride along on the legalism road where their behavior and dress and such are defined by certain sets of rules than to try to understand what the Bible is actually saying. With dress, for example, we know that modesty is required. But exactly what modesty is for any given culture is different. There was a time in Europe that to show the ankles was, for a woman, practically a declaration that she was a prostitute. However bare shoulders and a deep cleavage were considered normal! I don't think I would be comfortable with that at all, but then, I am a product of this culture.
     
  7. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can we add anti-CCM in there too.
    I think there is another problem, maybe a little deeper than conservatism...It is Legalism.

    Some, not all, want to bind believers to their legalistic standards and are not happy unless everyone around them are as legalistic as they are.

    They see themselves as right, and condemn everyone else as wrong.
    And of course, legalism is based in pride.

    You can feel proud when you can check off your legalistic list.

    "KJVO... check
    My wife doesn't wear pants.... check
    I only listen to hymns.... check
    I don't read PDL.... check

    Yep, I am a good Christian. At least that is what my pastor says..."

    You forget, that the whole time you are checking off your dos and don'ts, Christ is standing at the door ready to set you free from the bondage you are enslaved to. It is called "Grace"
     
  8. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro Dale,
    Our Grandfathers and Fathers must have been wrong on the subject back in the 50's,60's and 70's. They were conservative and were thinking they were "holding the line" on those subjects when all others were "falling away". What do you think?

    Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!
     
  9. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Dale,
    I just saw the pic for the first time. Beautiful Baby! Good thing the mother's likeness comes through. Go ahead......hijack your own thread and tell us all about the baby. I'll bet your dad is just settin' down the order with all the help around, He's first and all others WAIT!

    Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!
     
  10. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Dale,


    Long time no chat. :) My brother-in-law and I talk about KJVO at times. He is very KJVO and I am not. I do love KJV and I think it is one of the best translations. We both have conservative bible views. But as you have just shown above, we have diffrent standards of tradition. My brother-in-law holds to pretty much what you posted above...plus no TV, not just dresses only, but dresses to the ground only. They are home schoolers (another link), ladies have long hair ONLY way past their shoulders, ladies do not work outside the home, ..etc.

    My brother-in-law sent me these links below. The writer of these links, groups conservative Bible believers into fundy groups.

    http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3928
    http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3947
    http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3971


    The writer has very simple lables of A,B or C. What is funny is I have the same groups , but gave them NAME lables. The 3 groups ...hyper-fundamentalist, cardinal-fundamentalist, and open-fundamentalist. But the lines are drawen close to where the writer above draws them. I think its a good study, and helps us understand each other, if others would care to read the links.

    I want to throw this out. I have often seen a insightful link to tradition and a translation, and the RCC and latin. For 100s of years the RCC said Latin was sacred and how the Bible was "handed down" to us. Now English is the scared translation in the KJVO camp. Your thoughts?

    I should add...Years ago I was a KJVO. Well...more like TR only. I still use and carry KJV but it is not the only one I use.

    I would also have to agree with Tim and anti-CCM, if in fact they bam CCM because of taste....or ban because.."this is the way we always sing". Or "because hymns just sound more holy". This is the most wildly held view by those that like CCM toward others that do not like CCM. However, most people I talk to that do not like it, see other reason not to like it. Like watered down message.

    PDC churches...the same thing. If you do not like PD only because it is new, you are worship of tradition. If you see PD as focus on the world and not God, then that is another matter.

    But Tim is right in that these things can fall within worship of tradition.
     
    #10 Jarthur001, Dec 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2006
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello! I actually have a really nice one I should post that Michelle took the other day. There are a lot more pictures at www.daleandmichelle.com.

    Sure can, although I personally have problems with most CCM, not because it is new or difference but because it is man centered and not God centered oftentimes. Just because it is contemporary does not make it wrong. For what it is worth, I try to go to the really old songs in our church and I have been thinking about getting a PSalter in addition to our hymnal.

    The point is that we can't do things just because our grandparents did them. My point is not what you do or don't do, it is the reasons for why you do or don't do them.
    I use the KJV (1839?) and I am not comfortable with any other translation in english but I do not think that there can never be an updated translation. Updated in language, not in content of course.

    Yes, I am quite against the PDL etc but not for reason of traditions.
     
  12. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it was hard for me. It is hard to let go of tradition and it is also hard to let go of the things that you think make you better than others.
    I am not advocating liberalism either.

    If I can borrow a quote from a podcast I listen to: "Godless liberalism and Godless conservatism are two peas in a pod"
    I totally agree.
     
  13. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it has been a while. BTW, I got certified by Apple a couple of weeks ago.
    There is another forum I have been on a lot lately. There are several baptists on there but there are also quite a few presbyterians as well.

    Absolutely! Her grandparents are loving her. She has 3 cousins on Michelle's side but she is spoiled on both sides of the family.
     
  14. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those old sermons on a woman's role in the family, how they were to live before the world and conservative viewpoints on personal holiness and family were based on the scripture and that gave them a reason or purpose to preach them. Were those reasons and purposes wrong?

    Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!
     
  15. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please clarify.
    What sermons? I have heard a lot of sermons on women and the family etc. Some I agree with and others I don't.

    I don't think I have ever heard pants on women preached against at my church since that is not the role of the pastor to enforce.
    As far as conservative viewpoints, I don't care about conservatism. Conservatism is the enemy of reformation. Our country and our churches are in great need of reformation and holding on to little traditions of man isn't getting us anywhere.

    Whenever I hear this topic I think of this:


    For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
    (Matthew 23:4)

    Not just this issue but many others as well are practically forced upon people.
    I have seen two results time after time with girls that are raised with pharisaical rules. ONe is that they grow up to be self righteous and the other is that they rebel entirely.

    I for one do not plan to enforce rules on my family that are greater than what the Bible demands.
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some very good points have been brought to the table for discusson which I agree with. The worship (per se) of tradition for the sake of tradition is obviously wrong. Jesus had a scathing rebuke for the Pharisees for just this reason. But it is NOT legalism. So many Christians, even Baptists (who should know better) are mistaken about exactly what Legalism is.

    What most of you guys/gals are talking about is Phariseeism, not legalism. And at the other end of the swinging pendulum is Sadduceeism. The one, Pharisee, is one who has standards so high for holiness that God himself would not condone. Nay, in fact God himself in the person of Jesus rebuked them for it. We know it as self-righteousness. And God hates it.
    Sadducees on the other hand, held tenaciously to the Talmud and no other Scripture. They were of the priestly class and therefore looked down upon all who were not "high borne". They collaborated with the Romans and denied the resurrection. They were proud, arrogant and bigoted. Our modern day equivalent would be they who hold that one must have a PHD or DD in order to teach or understand Scripture, or one must "know the Greek" to understand the "nuances" of the Scripture. These were snobs and they still exist today in our circles.
    A legalist is simply one who adds the keeping of the Law of Moses to the requirment for Salvation. Paul had strong words for these folks in the letter to the Galatians.


    Please, keep your terminology straight from here on out, won't you?

    Are there Pharisees in the camp? Sure there is. There is also quite a large number of Sadduccees. I haven't met many legalists. SDA's come to mind, as do the WWCOG, but not many others.
     
  17. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Then you put your own constraints on the Holy Spirit.
    If one believes that he is led by the Holy Spirit to preach on modesty, and believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to a place where he can adequately draw a line where modesty stops and begins according to the Word of God, then (as the Bible says) "Who art thou that judgest thy brother?" There is a matter of soul liberty in this area. As a Baptist you have just denied that very beloved principle to others. You don't believe it is right for pastors to preach on women wearing pants. That is your opinion and you state it as if it were a dogma of the pope. It is your opinon and that is all.
    Others have other convictions; deeply held convictions which they believe are Scripturally based. These aren't traditions, and are not to be compared to either legalism or Pharsaism, but rather a matter of holiness and sanctification.
    Again: "Who art thou that judgest thy brother?"
    We all have deeply held convictions. One can't come straight out and say that they are wrong, simply because you believe you are right.
    "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
     
  18. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who is denying who what?
    Wait, it is just my opinion that pastors should not force people to do that which is not in the Bible? Ok, forget for a minute on the particular topic, a pastor, even if he thinks he is right has no right to force a man made rule on people in his church.

    If a pastor wants to preach on modesty, go for it.
    There are Biblical standard of modesty. BUt in areas that are not defined by the Bible, that is left to the family and the individual.

    I don't get you, on one hand, you say that there is personal liberty that I am infringing if I say that a pastor can't infringe on the personal liberty of a person in his church. Where is the logic in that?
    Pastors have every right to preach what the bible says. We as lay people are commanded to judge righteously.
    The subject of pants though is just like eating meats sacrificed to idols.
    To some, ALL pants are as mens apparel or immodest etc. To others, they are just a practical garment. The specifics here are NOT defined in the Bible and no man has the right to create rules the Bible doesn't.
     
  19. JamesBell

    JamesBell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to back up to the original post in this thread. To bash the notion of being conservative because it tries to conserve the status quo is a bit harsh. There are times (most I would argue) that being conservative, whether in politics of the church, is the proper course of action.

    For example, it is conservative to believe that a gender neutral Bible is wrong. It is conservative to believe that there is one way to Heaven- through the shed blood of Christ Jesus. It is Conservative to believe that one should abstain from immoral behavior. Yet, I doubt any one of us would argue that these positions are wrong.

    When it comes to the skirt/pants issue it is more a matter of personal belief, the congregation we are a part of, and personal comfort that reigns supreme. Personally, I would rather see every woman wearing a dress and every man wearing a coat and tie when they attend church services. To me it isn't a matter of being necessary according to the Bible, because I don't believe it is. However, I see the idea that we need to change to be a minor spirit of rebellion. There was nothing wrong with the way things were, people wanted to change just for the sake of change and to prove that they weren't tied to the legalistic demads of a church. But, I know that it isn't worth my breath. In the very conservative church I attend i am often the only person under 60 that is wearing a coat and tie (other than those in the pulpit of course). Most of the women of all ages are wearing pants. I don't see that it changes the service or the intention of the congregation in any way.

    How about just allowing those that wish to stick to these traditions to do so. Until they show up at your house telling you what to wear, I don't think it really matters.
     
  20. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I probably should have added that I am not advocating liberalism either.

    Conserving Godly things is a good thing.
    Being liberal in areas where liberality is Godly, is a good thing. (like in at the offering plate:)
    But being conservative, just out of pure tradition is dangerous.
     

Share This Page

Loading...