If you have to wear make-up to be accepted....

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

If my (fill in the blank) makes my brother or sister to offend...

We are not to use our liberty as a cover to be hurtful to others (i.e. a cloke of maliciousness). There are genuinely innocent and yet detrimental things we could do that would hurt a brother or sister's faith, especially a new covert's.

All things may be lawful but not all things are expedient. Just because we have the right, doesn't make it right. Agape love of the brethren (which proves we love God), is sacrificial in nature. It costs us something to prefer someone else's wishes and desires before our own.

That is why embracing modesty, humility, and simplicity in outward appearance, for both men and women, is the key, because by default, it becomes harder to offend or bother someone when there isn't anything offensive or bothersome in the first place.

I'll give you a perfect example: My wife's sister and husband, as licensed UPCI ministers of the Gospel, once moved to an ultra-con state that generally speaking, hated the idea of wedding rings as something sinful. So, instead of bucking the system and fighting the trend, they simply removed them from off of their hands as a sacrificial service to those brothers and sisters who might otherwise have been offended.

Legalism, perhaps on the one hand, but true Christian charity and humility on the other. It is this that I advocate. It's never about make-up, hair length, pants, beards, wedding rings, tattoos, shorts, or any other thing. We came naked into this world and we leave the same way. It's about being an unprofitable servant who cares more about the needs and well-being of others before self.

Self may want many things, even have the right to many things, but self must be denied to follow Jesus. How far are we willing to go?

I applaud your stance, and I think that you have a good point here.
If you and other brethren want to not do some things in order to avoid offending a brother or a sister that is fine, you have my full support.

But there is a difference between voluntary abstinence and mandatory abstinence.

I have nothing against voluntary abstinence of certain habits or rights, but many preachers make that a mandatory abstinence of things which the Bible never prohibited or even mentioned. There is absolutely Zero scriptures for most of those rules.

Yet, you know full well that people get ejected from church if they do not comply with the man-made rules. You are being charitable by abiding by the man-made rules, but where is the charity toward those who do not feel a conviction to abide by man-made rules?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I applaud your stance, and I think that you have a good point here.
If you and other brethren want to not do some things in order to avoid offending a brother or a sister that is fine, you have my full support.

But there is a difference between voluntary abstinence and mandatory abstinence.

I have nothing against voluntary abstinence of certain habits or rights, but many preachers make that a mandatory abstinence of things which the Bible never prohibited or even mentioned. There is absolutely Zero scriptures for most of those rules.

Yet, you know full well that people get ejected from church if they do not comply with the man-made rules. You are being charitable by abiding by the man-made rules, but where is the charity toward those who do not feel a conviction to abide by man-made rules?

This is a good point. And I might add that I have NEVER attended a church that taught anything other than - "the standards are NOT a salvational issue". YET, if you don't agree with the rules, you are considered lost.

It makes no sense to me and no one has ever offered an explanation to me. Mostly they say, "Oh, you weren't raised UPCI, so you wouldn't understand." LOL!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is a good point. And I might add that I have NEVER attended a church that taught anything other than - "the standards are NOT a salvational issue". YET, if you don't agree with the rules, you are considered lost.

Ba Da Bing!

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is a good point. And I might add that I have NEVER attended a church that taught anything other than - "the standards are NOT a salvational issue". YET, if you don't agree with the rules, you are considered lost.
It makes no sense to me and no one has ever offered an explanation to me. Mostly they say, "Oh, you weren't raised UPCI, so you wouldn't understand." LOL!

This seems rather contradictory.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Luke

This seems rather contradictory.

It is contradictory. How does the UPCI support such contradiction?

[navygoat1998]

My wife told me that many of the sisters in her church would wear face powder because it is not makeup

On another note when a guy meets a sister in the UPC nothing is hidden on a sisters face.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

My wife told me that many of the sisters in her church would wear face powder because it is not makeup

On another note when a guy meets a sister in the UPC nothing is hidden on a sisters face.

LOL! This is all old school.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is a good point. And I might add that I have NEVER attended a church that taught anything other than - "the standards are NOT a salvational issue". YET, if you don't agree with the rules, you are considered lost.

It makes no sense to me and no one has ever offered an explanation to me. Mostly they say, "Oh, you weren't raised UPCI, so you wouldn't understand." LOL!

This is one of the most interesting contradictions in old time Pentecost and it has been around all of my life. I think a lot of "progressive" UPC type churches have tried to address this by welcoming those that don't adhere to the dress code to fellowship, attend church, and most importantly pay tithes. They are not outright condemmed to hell or labled as lost but they also are not allowed to minister, teach, sing in the choir, or be on the platform. As the former Pianoman said about this status that he had at a UPC church he attended for a time "I was a second class citizen".

[Sasha]

I'm all for perhaps giving up a 'freedom' as to not offend, but my own convictions come first. If what I have to give up goes against my own convictions, then the offense will have to be overlooked.

Some may be offended because I wear a wedding ring, for instance, but what if I'm offended that someone doesn't when they are married? Should they wear one so I won't be offended?

Do we, as Christians, become so offended at the doings of other Christians that their actions cause us to stumble? Are we that weak as people that we can't overlook offenses? Are we to be constantly on our toes, changing ourselves to suit others in the hopes we never come across as offensive??

In the profession I do as a living, I'm offended daily. I have big shoulders. I get over it or ignore it altogether.

I shouldn't have to worry about Pastor Soandso getting offended over something I'm doing. If he's so offended that he may stumble over me, perhaps he shouldn't be a pastor.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

My wife made that decision long before I ever met her. When she was a teen, in fact (with neither parental or pastoral or church input). I've never forced or reinforced the issue, but I stand by her convictions. She also sewed up her slits and started wearing 3/4 length sleeves with loose fitting clothes before we met, too.

Why? For the very reasons I've enunciated: to protect herself from being a stumblingblock to other men.



Why wife doesn't apply cream, but does use lotion for medical reasons only (dry, sensitive skin). She only ever uses all-natural, organic products, so there aren't any of the chemicals otherwise found in such products.

As far as other products go, it's the same thing: only organic products. But she doesn't sun-bath.

And as far as clogging the pours goes, that was one minor element to the over all argument, just to show how make-up can cause the very thing make-up is used to cover up, namely acne. It was given as proof of the double-edge sword nature of the product. Nothing more. So, if a woman stopped wearing make-up, the potential for her blemishes to go away increases, thus negating the perceived need to wear make-up in the first place.



Of course there are worse things. I merely kept the principle to the topic at hand.

If my (fill in the blank) makes my brother or sister to offend...

We are not to use our liberty as a cover to be hurtful to others (i.e. a cloke of maliciousness). There are genuinely innocent and yet detrimental things we could do that would hurt a brother or sister's faith, especially a new covert's.

All things may be lawful but not all things are expedient. Just because we have the right, doesn't make it right. Agape love of the brethren (which proves we love God), is sacrificial in nature. It costs us something to prefer someone else's wishes and desires before our own.

That is why embracing modesty, humility, and simplicity in outward appearance, for both men and women, is the key, because by default, it becomes harder to offend or bother someone when there isn't anything offensive or bothersome in the first place.

I'll give you a perfect example: My wife's sister and husband, as licensed UPCI ministers of the Gospel, once moved to an ultra-con state that generally speaking, hated the idea of wedding rings as something sinful. So, instead of bucking the system and fighting the trend, they simply removed them from off of their hands as a sacrificial service to those brothers and sisters who might otherwise have been offended.

Legalism, perhaps on the one hand, but true Christian charity and humility on the other. It is this that I advocate. It's never about make-up, hair length, pants, beards, wedding rings, tattoos, shorts, or any other thing. We came naked into this world and we leave the same way. It's about being an unprofitable servant who cares more about the needs and well-being of others before self.

Self may want many things, even have the right to many things, but self must be denied to follow Jesus. How far are we willing to go?

I think it is wonderful that you and your wife have the same desire to not be a stumbling block to those around you. I do applaud both your efforts to not offend your brother or sister, as long as your convictions remain your own, and you don't feel the need to impose them upon others outside your family, and as long as you are doing it as unto the Lord.