A 16-year-old Christian girl from southern Sudan said Friday she was lashed 50 times for wearing a skirt deemed indecent by authorities in the north who enforce a strict version of Islamic law.
Continue reading “Sudanese teen flogged for wearing “indecent” skirt”
Nov 28 2009
Sudanese teen flogged for wearing “indecent” skirt
Jul 25 2009
Jason, Why did you have to go there?
Jason is in trouble. Either that, or he’s on a roll. Here are two posts from yesterday, check them out.
On Public Nudity:
When man was created he was naked. Once he sinned he recognized that he was naked, and felt shame. That began the clothing industry. The first designer was not DKNY, but YHWH. Several others have attempted their hand at the design business since YHWH created his first “fall” line (pun intended), but frankly, I’m not so sure YHWH approves of their designs.
The only thing that I would like to add – Jason should have included men in bikini briefs as well.
And on those pesky question askers:
Why is it that when someone challenges a traditional teaching/practice, he is often labeled as “divisive” or a “troublemaker,” and is summarily dismissed? It may be true that the individual has a divisive attitude or is acting in a troublesome manner, but the attitude in which he dissents or questions a particular doctrine/practice is separate from the arguments he presents against it. Someone may be the biggest jerk on the planet, but their attitude has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid, and their beliefs correct. Simply pointing out their bad attitude does not answer the question of what is true, nor does it excuse us from interacting with their arguments. Labeling and dismissing those who question the mainstream view is often just a power play, usually employed by those without a rebutting argument. It’s a way of avoiding discussion, and having to defend their own point of view.
Jul 08 2009
The Modest Woman in the Ancient World
Michael at Ecce Homo listed as one of this five valuable resources a letter between two women, friends, concerning the modesty of a wives in the ancient world. According the Michael, while the letter which we have dates from the 3rd century, it was most likely written as early as the 1st century – or around the time of the composure of 1st Timothy (maybe).
First, we look at 1st Timothy 2.9-15:
In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (1Ti 2:9-15 NKJ)
I would have to agree with Michael that the women here spoken of by Paul are primarily the married women, but I believe that Paul expected modesty from all women.
Paul’s commands to women here have been taken in a variety of ways – some harsh, some as cultural contexts. While culture plays a part – from the outside – Paul is referencing something more important – that regardless of culture, women professing piety must act a little pious.
Further, in regards to childbearing, Michael makes an excellent addition to the controversy regarding the moods of ancient Roman society in that first, it may have been against the law to refuse to have children and second, abortions could end the life of the woman very easily. In other words, this was physical deliverance rather than the eschatological salvation which many see.
Michael provides a greater resource than I could, which would be to restate his arguments, but if you would like, click here and read his treatment of this passage of Scripture. While you may not agree with everything that he has to say, it is a different take on this passage.
Regarding the letter mentioned above,
From P. Haun. II, 2 II, 1-42:
Melissa to Clearete, Greetings.
Of your own volition it appears to me that you have the characteristics of what is good. For you wish zealously to hear [teaching] about a wife’s adornment. It gives a good indication that you intend to perfect yourself according to virtue. It is necessary then for the free and modest (ἐλεύθεραν καὶ σώφρονα) wife to live with her lawful husband adorned with quietness, white and clean in her dress, plain but not costly, simple but not elaborate or excessive. For she must reject garments shot with purple or gold. For these are used by hetairai in soliciting men generally, but if she is to be attractive to one man, her own husband, the ornament of a wife is her manner and not her dress (στολή). And a free and modest wife (ἐλεύθεραν καὶ σώφρονα) must appear attractive to her own husband, but not to the man next door, having on her cheeks the blush of modesty (ὄψεως) rather than of rouge and powder, and a good and noble bearing and decency and modesty (καλοκαγαθίαν καὶ κοσμιότητα καὶ σωφροσύνην) rather than gold and emerald. For it is not in expenditure on clothing and looks that the modest woman (σώφρονα) should express her love of the good but in the management and maintenance of her household, and pleasing her own husband, given that he is a moderate man (σωφρονοῦντι), by fulfilling his wishes. For the husband’s will ought to be engraved as law on a decent wife’s mind and she must live by it. And she must consider that the dowry she has brought with her that is best and greatest of all is her order and trust in both the beauty and wealth of the soul rather than in money and appearance. As for money and looks, time, hostility, illness and fortune take them away: rather the adornment of soul lasts till death with women who possess it.
Similar in thought to Paul’s speech, but also allowing that the husband must be a ‘moderate man.’ I wonder if there are any corresponding letter between men of this time period detailing the duties of a husband to a wife?
Paul provides very little -
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ”For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:25-33 NKJ)
Peter adds this to the duties of a husband, after giving duties to a wife:
In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered. (1Pe 3:7 NLT)
I use the NLT here because I believe that it gives a better translation for ‘weaker vessel’ than a then more literal (N)KJV.
The Household Codes of the New Testament were not new, but generally considered the example of a good life in the ancient world. We should seek to understand the cultural context of the statements, however, so that we do not add to the Scripture what is not there. Holiness is for a people, men and women, devoted to God. Although we can see a scholarly treatment provides for us essential clues – supported by instances from the times – to the holiness of the early Church, we note that even then, society, while not always practicing it, recognized modesty.
Apr 25 2009
Mother uses Bible verse on modesty to fight Irving ISD dress code requiring tucked-in shirts
At least some courts are keeping religious freedom alive…
Dyker Neyland says she fought for her daughter’s right to attend Irving‘s Thomas Haley Elementary School wearing an untucked shirt because of her religious beliefs as a Christian.
BRANDON WADE/Special ContributorDyker Neyland says her daughter, Javé Neyland, 7, has a right to wear her shirttail out because of 1 Timothy 2:9. ‘I don’t want her behind showing,’ she says.
The Irving school board agreed with her this week and overturned decisions by the principal and district administrators, who had told Neyland that her daughter, Javé, must attend school with her shirt tucked in.
Neyland says Javé, a 7-year-old second-grader, has the right to wear her shirttail out because of a Bible verse, 1 Timothy 2:9, which dictates that “women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing.”
“I don’t want her behind showing,” Neyland said. “I don’t want her body being exposed.”
It’s all a matter of interpretation. Many private religious schools enforce tucked-in shirts as well.
The school board’s waiver for Neyland raises an important question: Does anyone who cites Scripture get a pass on the dress requirement?
“I feel I am being persecuted for being a Christian,” she told the board before the vote. “There will be a day of reckoning, and you will have to answer to God.”
School board president Jerry Christian supported her request and said the student handbook for parents doesn’t even mention anything about tucking shirts in. Therefore, it’s unclear, he said
“Thank you, Jesus. God is good!” Neyland cried out.
Apr 06 2009
Proud as Peacocks: The Hypocrisy of the Holiness Movement
The Male Peacock
Welcome to my Monday morning diatribe:
I have a confession to make – I am holiness. I support this, not in the legalistic manner in which some do, but in an effort to be modest, and to devoid myself of pride and the things of this world. Further, I believe that the life of a Christian is not bound in material goods, but in humility before God and man. We do not seek to please man in anything that we do – whether doctrine or dress. The less we spend on fashions, the more we can spend on the things that matter. If we devote ourselves wholly to God, then the prideful things of this world will no longer matter.
Some hold to the length of a skirt as a matter of heaven and hell – I do not. With that said, I believe that if certain standards are set, then those standards should be adhered to by the community which has agreed to those standards. This article is about defending holiness, but about taking to task the rampant sexism found so often among those who practice it.
The holiness movement is noted for their women who have long, uncut hair, no make-up, the rare piece of jewelry, usually limited to a wedding ring, long dresses, loosing fitting clothes, and a quite personality. If a woman wears brightly colored clothing, you can almost hear everyone in the building whisper ‘harlot.’ If the sleeves are above the elbows, well, she might as well be naked. If she wears jewelry beyond a wedding ring, well, she might be compared to a street walker, and heaven help us all if the style of a woman’s hear is anything but a bun on top of the head.
Can you smell the brimstone yet?
The men, on the other hand, well, they cannot wear shorts.
Do you see the disparity here?
Male and Female Peacocks
Peacocks, like most waterfowl, have the females dulled in color while the males are given to bright patterns. The same is said for what has taken hold in the holiness movement as of late. The woman are kept docile. They are to dress in dark colors, very loosing fitting, with hair either left to hang on twirled into a bun. They are not to appear as if they care about their personal appearance beyond that of personal hygiene. They are the personal property of their husbands and are not to be seen with clothing that might attack a glance.
The men, well, they are allowed a full array of clothing. They can wear sharp three piece suits, zoot suits, loud ties, purple shoes, and put enough oil in their hair that the Exxon Valdez looks like a pinprick. They can wear purple, pink, bright blue, loud red, and generally any color in the rainbow and the hex coloring system. Snake skin is acceptable. Shoot, why not leopard print? They can wear t-shirts with short sleeves – who cares about the tattoos? The male of the holiness species is often highlighted if they standout.
And jewelry – watches, rings, tie pins, and the amount of silver and gold on their shoes! Peacocks, the lot of them.
Is it fair to require something of women that we do not of men? Is there a double standard in the eyes of God or is it in the eyes of man?
Women, our wives, are not our personal property which we hide from the world while we are allowed to strut around looking like peacocks. If our women are demanded to clothe themselves in modesty, then were is the same command for men?
We are told numerous times to watch our communication, our conduct, that it be worthy of the Gospel of Christ and that it be done in simplicity and godly sincerity. Further, we are told that God is a not a respector of persons, and that there is neither male nor female before God. If this is so, then while we may hold different offices, we must not be treated in a different manner. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Jan 15 2009
Tertullian, On Modesty XII – Verdict of the Apostles
Reading Tertullian’s On Modesty as been beneficial to me – as a mental and a spiritual exercise. I have come to see Tertullian – in this instance – as a man deeply troubled by the lack of morality and holiness inside the church that he dearly loved. His antagonistic words were meant to counter the steep slide into moral depravity which he saw overtaking the church. Perhaps he was offensive and brutish, his rigorism showing, but surely he did it out of love for the Church and out of a plea for holy living.
Continue reading “Tertullian, On Modesty XII – Verdict of the Apostles”
Jan 14 2009
A Plea for Holiness
For this reason, brace up the hands that hang down and the feebled knees, And make straight paths for your feet, so that the lame limb will not be dislocated, but rather healed. Pursue peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, Looking after one another less anyone fall back from the grace of God – unless any bitter root spring up trouble you, causing the many to be defiled, Less anyone be a fornicator or a profane person like Esau, who for one piece of meat sold his birthright. For you know how that later on, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected, for he could find no way for repentance, although he pleaded with tears. (Hebrews 12:12-17 CTV-NT)
Holiness is the manifestation on the outside of the hidden things of the heart. We are called to pursue peace, to strive to maintain it, with all men. This is easily possible, if we give in to all manners of vices and all the wickedness that is common to the sinful nature of humanity, yet the writer of Hebrews cautions us to temper this with holiness, without which no one will see God. Calvin says,
“…(F)or holiness has an especial regard to God. Though then the whole world were roused to a blazing war, yet holiness is not to be forsaken, for it is the bond of our union with God.”
The Apostle Paul said that God did not call us to uncleanness but to holiness (1st Thessalonians 4.7). What provides us with holiness? The hedonists among us would have us celebrate all manners of wickedness in dress, trends, fashion, in styles, in relationships, in friendships, in music, in the things set before our eyes. These hedonists would have us worship at the alter of excuses, thronging ourselves about with selfishness, disregard for Tradition, for sense, for class, for a sanctity of body, mind, and soul.
They would use life circumstances – age, perhaps – as an excuse to allow, to promote an unholy lifestyle. And they would allow the Church to be infested with all manner of wickedness to satisfy pride, encouraging an unsanctified life in order to prove quantity over quality, to capture the souls that desire not God, but the world.
The idea of holiness has a Christian institution is not limited to Paul and the writer of Hebrews, but can be found in Revelation and indeed, the Prophets.
But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. (Revelation 21:27 NKJV)
A highway shall be there, and a road, And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, But it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, Shall not go astray. (Isaiah 35:8 NKJV)
We must understand the idea of holiness by the unknown author of Hebrews in the light of 10.14,
For by one offering he has perfected for all times the ones being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14 CTV-NT)
Both phrases, ‘being sanctified’ and ’shall see the Lord’, refer to the eschatological consummation. We are not made perfect at the Cross, but it is a life lived in service of the Lord which brings us a complete holiness. It is a life set apart for God, like the priesthood of the Temple. We strive for holiness, indeed, but it is life lived apart, and see apart, from the world.
Barclay,
He must aim at holiness (hagiasmos). Hagiasmos has in it the same root as the adjective hagios, which is usually translated holy. The root meaning is always difference and separation. Although he lives in the world, the man who is hagios must always in one sense be different from it and separate from it. His standards are not the world’s standards, nor his conduct the world’s conduct. His aim is not to stand well with men but to stand well with God. Hagiasmos, as Westcott finely put it, is “the preparation for the presence of God.” The life of the Christian is dominated by the constant memory that its greatest aim is to enter into the presence of God.
Westcott is correct, it is a preparation for the presence of God,
The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!” (Revelation 4:8 NKJV)
And you shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine. (Leviticus 20:26 NKJV)
What then is holiness if it is not the individual attempting to make him or her self able to stand in the presence of God? Or, what end is holiness?
But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. (Romans 6:22 NKJV)
I find myself attempting to live a life set apart from the world, not in isolation or seclusion, but in service to God. It is not out of legalistic fear, but because of the love that I have, and should have, for God. What then is required, if I love God?
Jesus said to him, “”You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ (Matthew 22:37 NKJV)
If the love of God is to encompass our entire being, what then of our body? Does our flesh exist outside of the love of God? When we were yet sinners, we yield our bodies up to sin, and served sin in our flesh and with our flesh. What then of righteousness?
(I speak in words common to you all because of the weakness of your flesh.) For even as you have presented your members as slaves to uncleanness and to iniquity that results in yet more iniquity — even so now present your members as slaves to righteousness resulting in holiness. (Romans 6:19 CTV-NT)
If we once yield our flesh to unrighteousness while we were sinners, then perhaps we are to serve God with that same flesh? Does that mean that we deny every good pleasure? Do we live in seclusion? No, instead, we must represent God with out flesh and become Incarnational in thinking. We must remember that this same flesh that we wear, this same flesh which we are bound, was the same flesh that Christ clothed Himself in,
Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 NLT)
Should we not then yield – and teach others to yield – our flesh in the same manner? Do we decorate it as a pagan temple? Do we worship ourselves and the talents that God have bestowed upon us? Do we partake of our age, and gender? Do we allow the love our our own flesh to rise above the love of God and the things of God? I have to remember the King of Babylon who abused the things of God – even when those things were captured due to God’s wrath,
Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in the presence of the thousand. While he tasted the wine, Belshazzar gave the command to bring the gold and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple which had been in Jerusalem, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken from the temple of the house of God which had been in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze and iron, wood and stone. (Daniel 5:1-4 NKJV)
The story we know from memory, but this pronouncement let us read again,
And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. (Daniel 5:23 NKJV)
Belshazzar, the (grand)son of the great King who had conquered Israel, had abused the things of God. Even today, without the gilded Temple and ceremonial instruments, we too have the things of God. We have the things dedicated to Him – a building, the things inside the building, times, season, lives. What if we misuse these things?
We must find holiness not only in our flesh but in things devoted to God.
I find myself withdrawing from more and more because of the things that I cannot associate myself with – and if I claim to be a servant of God, and if my flesh is in His service, and my talents His, then I cannot bring myself to be associated with Belshazzar. If we are called to be separate from this world, and we as the Church understand this not to be to the isolation from the world, then what is our separation?
Therefore, I call upon you, brethren, through the compassions of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice — dedicated and well-pleasing to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not fashion yourselves according to this world; but continue to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for then you will be able to discern what is the will of God — what is good, what is well-pleasing, and what is perfect. (Romans 12:1-2 CTV-NT)
The Greek word here translated as ‘fashioned’ is συσχηματίζω, meaning ‘to conform one’s self (i.e. one’s mind and character) to another’s pattern’ (Thayer’s). It is about trends – whether style, perhaps, or theology.
Pride, luxury, vanity, extravagance in dress, and riotous living, prevail now, as they did then, and are as unworthy of a Christian’s pursuit as they are injurious to his soul, and hateful in the sight of God. – Clarke
When I arrived to this part of Romans in my translation, I immediately thought of ‘trends.’ Trends are most predominate in fashions, in hair styles, in physical decorations – in lusts, desires, and fleshly surrenderings. Paul warns us of making our character, our mind, our life from the pattern of this world. The worldly pattern that surrounds us is not to me imitated but shun and despised. Are to look and dress like the world? Are to allow them to use the things of God? Calvin labors the point,
We know that unholy men, in order to gratify the flesh, anxiously lay hold on whatever is set forth in Scripture respecting the infinite goodness of God; and hypocrites also, as far as they can, maliciously darken the knowledge of it, as though the grace of God extinguished the desire for a godly life, and opened to audacity the door of sin.
Grace does not allow hedonism, impurity, or an excuse of sin; Tertullian would agree. Simply because we have forgiveness readied for us, it in no way allows us to live a life in constant need of repentance. This is not to say that we do not constantly need forgiveness from God, but to abuse the grace of God is to call upon us the prohibitions found in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapters 6 and 10). If we are to live a life sanctified (in holiness) to God, then how can we rightly allow ourselves a fashioning to this world?
How far do we go in proscribing prohibitions to those inside the Church, after all holiness is demanded only of those inside the Church? Can we rightly demand that those that would purport to be a Church member live by a certain set of standards – especially if they are in front?
Now I call upon you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and lead others astray contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience became known to all. Therefore, I rejoice on your behalf — yet I want you to be wise as to the good and innocent as to the evil. (Romans 16:17-19 CTV-NT)
Paul does not command those that cause division because of doctrine and because of God to be avoided, but those that are contrary. A man can cause division in the congregation because of what he sees as contrary to the doctrine and good order of Christ – to him avoid not, but to those that would usurp a righteous place to display their unrighteous life, to them that cause divisions, mark them and avoid them.
Further,
And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3:14 NKJV)
In this, Paul commands us to admonish the person as a family member, but we cannot allow unholy behavior in the house of God, as he reminded Timothy,
These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV)
There is a conduct required in the house of God, in His Church, and it more than silence here or silence there – obedience, or praise. There is a holy conduct required by the sanctified,
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. (Colossians 3:5-14 NKJV)
Is this a sermon? Perhaps. I no longer preach sermons, not for a disqualification or the lack of call – there are times then I feel the call so strongly that it bears as a millstone. So, I choose this place to share and to steer, to doctrine, and to holiness. I try to abide in holiness – in a life that is without thought of the the cares of this world, but with the constant thought that I must serve a holy God, and God has yet to offer an excuse for those that do not measure up – to those who know to do good and do it not – that do not measure up to His holiness.
Holiness is not isolation from the world, living in seclusion until the End – it is living in this world as a citizen of a heavenly home. This world and all manners of wickedness is not ours, so should we clothe ourselves in them?
Jan 02 2009
Tertullian, On Modesty XI – The Author Comes to Consider Definite Acts of the Lord
Continuing our reading of Tertullian, we find him finishing his argument on parables with the idea that it is up to God alone to forgive, regardless of interpretation; however, he points out that Christ never forgave a Christian.
Continue reading “Tertullian, On Modesty XI – The Author Comes to Consider Definite Acts of the Lord”
Jan 01 2009
Tertullian, On Modesty X – Repentance More Competent to Heathens than to Christians.
Continuing our reading of Tertullian, we find the author once again circumnavigating his opponents.
Dec 31 2008
Tertullian, On, Modesty IX. – Certain General Principles of Parabolic Interpretation
Continuing our reading of Tertullian’s work, On Modesty, we come to the ancient author’s piece on the dangers of transgression in interpretation. At several points, he make references to a strict form of biblical interpretation opposing, and predating, the methods employed by the Alexandrian school which insignificant things are used for great truths – such as the 100 sheep.
According to some sources this was one of the Tertullian’s last works, perhaps 222.
Next Page »
