More On Beards

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. I don't entirely agree with him on every point. But I know his heart is in the right place.

You don't have a problem with a someone asking women to wear dresses to church?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You don't have a problem with a someone asking women to wear dresses to church?

No. Absolutely not.

What I have a problem with is someone telling a woman that she'll burn in Hell if she doesn't wear a dress, that her salvation is questionable if she doesn't wear a dress, or that she's not in good standing with the church if she doesn't wear a dress. I find that to be legalistic.

This pastor simply asks that women wear dresses because he believes that dresses (or skirts) are more modest than pants and that women should seek the highest degree of Christian modesty; especially if they attend corporate worship.

Most women honor his request, even if they prefer to wear pants at home and/or at work. Those who don't aren't treated badly, threatened with Hell, or berated in any way. You realize it is the pastor's request, it isn't treated like a biblical mandate. And it isn't about "holiness" either, it's he considers modesty a Christian discipline. Holiness is regarded as a disposition of one's heart, no matter what they're wearing.

He's a very loving and principled UPCI pastor.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. Absolutely not.

What I have a problem with is someone telling a woman that she'll burn in Hell if she doesn't wear a dress, that her salvation is questionable if she doesn't wear a dress, or that she's not in good standing with the church if she doesn't wear a dress. I find that to be legalistic.

Yet, he is still telling these women to do something based on his own preferences. He believes the women who are not wearing dresses should wear a dress next time they come to service, because as you have posted they're immodest. It is now made into a religious issue based on the leader's idea of what is modest.

Originally Posted by Aquila

This pastor simply asks that women wear dresses because he believes that dresses (or skirts) are more modest than pants and that women should seek the highest degree of Christian modesty; especially if they attend corporate worship.

There you go. The women in the congregation who wear pants are immodest and are of low degree. Not coming up to the "highest degree" of Christain standard of modesty? Therefore if they come to practice the religion at the religious center of gathering, they should get dressed up in religious robes. But, you don't see that as legalism, because he doesn't tell them they are going to hell?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most women honor his request, even if they prefer to wear pants at home and/or at work.

Of course they do, because he is teaching them legalism.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those who don't aren't treated badly, threatened with Hell, or berated in any way. You realize it is the pastor's request, it isn't treated like a biblical mandate.

You just post to see what kind of reaction you get from people. Sad.

But anyway, treated badly? Why should he or anyone else treat them badly? He is telling them to wear saffron robes, smear yellow, with a red dot on their forehead. They are told to wear a wig instead of a veil, they are told to wear the hijab before Jumu'ah at the masjid. Bro, that's legalism, that is doing something religious but not believing in it. This is what I have been saying over and over again. Telling people you love them and not loving them is legalism. Telling your father you are going out to the field and NEVER doing it is legalism. Yet, the son who said no but went anyway later was considered the true believer. You think just because they are threatened with hell it's legalism? Then you haven't a clue to what legalism really is, it is religious worship as going through the motions without having any true connections with the ONE you are supposed to be connected to? Not the man in the pulpit telling you that he would like everyone to wear white. Also forget your arguments about preachers who have no Bible but ask men to shave. You just vindicated those hombres. Because if it is ok, for your preacher to ask women to dress like Emma Bontrager before entering his temple. Therefore in the very same act a brother can ask a man to shave his beard off. Because of whatever reason he so chooses.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And it isn't about "holiness" either, it's he considers modesty a Christian discipline. Holiness is regarded as a disposition of one's heart, no matter what they're wearing.

It isn't about anything short of a religious leader telling people they need to wear the big buffalo hat when they come to the water buffalo lodge.
It is the highest level of Christian discipline? But it isn't in their heart? Bro, if legalism was a semi truck going down I-95 in the dark and hit you dead in the face, you still wouldn't know what legalism really means.

Originally Posted by Aquila

He's a very loving and principled UPCI pastor.

Of course, because he meets whatever requirement you have for the day.
If he was to tell you to do something before entering his building, then we would see your evaluation change.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yet, he is still telling these women to do something based on his own preferences. He believes the women who are not wearing dresses should wear a dress next time they come to service, because as you have posted they're immodest. It is now made into a religious issue based on the leader's idea of what is modest.

There you go. The women in the congregation who wear pants are immodest and are of low degree. Not coming up to the "highest degree" of Christain standard of modesty? Therefore if they come to practice the religion at the religious center of gathering, they should get dressed up in religious robes. But, you don't see that as legalism, because he doesn't tell them they are going to hell?

Of course they do, because he is teaching them legalism.

I know the man. He openly states that it is his opinion and preference. He doesn't state that women who wear pants are any less spiritual, or that the Bible would condemn them for being immodest. He openly expresses that it is merely his opinion. It isn't regarded as a heaven or hell issue. Therefore, it's not legalism. Legalism would demand obedience to a law or tradition in order to avoid Hell.

You just post to see what kind of reaction you get from people. Sad.

Now, so far the conversation has been logical. But here's where it goes South. Watch what you do, it's almost a pattern. In the statement above, you go personal. Now you launch into a bombastic, verbose, condemnation of something entirely made up in your head. Why? Because it is YOU who is merely trying to get a reaction out of people. Let's take a slow and calculated look at what you wrote....

But anyway, treated badly? Why should he or anyone else treat them badly? He is telling them to wear saffron robes, smear yellow, with a red dot on their forehead. They are told to wear a wig instead of a veil, they are told to wear the hijab before Jumu'ah at the masjid. Bro, that's legalism, that is doing something religious but not believing in it.

Where was any of that said? Nowhere. Here is where you are trying to provoke a reaction. In fact, the pastor I'm talking about doesn't "tell" them to wear anything. While he expresses his opinion that dresses and skirts are more modest, he doesn't condemn pants on a woman. And modesty, in case you forgot, is indeed taught in Scripture. Since Scripture doesn't definitively lay down measurements or rules for modesty, the church's approach to modesty can be flexible. For example, what follows are four different ways in which modesty can be handled in the church:

- It can be left to individual conscience, relying primarily on the the individual to determine what they feel is modest.
- It can be based on consensus, the local body defining what they believe to be modest.
- It can be based on pastoral guidance and opinion (as with this circumstance).
- It can be based on a rigid legalistic mandate that is a codified tradition of man (what we see in many congregations and organizations).

There is a big difference between a pastor telling a woman that he believes dresses and skirts are more modest than pants and a pastor that tells women that they are wearing an abomination to God based on an OT law. The modesty teacher can have tolerance for those women who disagree with his opinion. But the one who believes that pants on a woman is an abomination has no such flexibility. He must demand that she repent and put on a dress or skirt. And failure to repent implies sinful rebellion, and thus pants become a Heaven or Hell issue. Of the two examples here, one man is principled. The other is a legalist.
[INDENT]This is what I have been saying over and over again. Telling people you love them and not loving them is legalism. Telling your father you are going out to the field and NEVER doing it is legalism. Yet, the son who said no but went anyway later was considered the true believer. You think just because they are threatened with hell it's legalism? Then you haven't a clue to what legalism really is, it is religious worship as going through the motions without having any true connections with the ONE you are supposed to be connected to? Not the man in the pulpit telling you that he would like everyone to wear white.[/QUOTE]

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Definition of legalism
1: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code •the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice
2: a legal term or rule

Legalism can be "expanded" to include other issues, such as religion without relationship. However, such definitions are expansive, not essential.

Also forget your arguments about preachers who have no Bible but ask men to shave. You just vindicated those hombres. Because if it is ok, for your preacher to ask women to dress like Emma Bontrager before entering his temple. Therefore in the very same act a brother can ask a man to shave his beard off. Because of whatever reason he so chooses.

I disagree. There is New Testament Scripture admonishing modest apparel for believers, especially when gathered together (the veil admonition being a cultural example from their time). But when dealing with beards, there is absolutely NO New Testament Scripture that addresses the need to govern facial hair in any manner.

You're comparing applies to oranges in order to find a justification for preachers who ask men to shave.

It isn't about anything short of a religious leader telling people they need to wear the big buffalo hat when they come to the water buffalo lodge.

A pastor has New Testament backing when it comes to requesting that congregants be dressed modestly:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

1 Timothy 2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Peter 3:3-4
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

In addition, he doesn't say that they "need" to wear anything. They are free to wear whatever they choose. However, since the Bible admonishes modesty, he has informed the congregation of what he believes is the most modest of apparel.

It is the highest level of Christian discipline? But it isn't in their heart?

Those who have modesty in their heart will be modest no matter what they wear.

Bro, if legalism was a semi truck going down I-95 in the dark and hit you dead in the face, you still wouldn't know what legalism really means.

Creative insult. I'll give you two extra points.

Of course, because he meets whatever requirement you have for the day. If he was to tell you to do something before entering his building, then we would see your evaluation change.

You're failing to see that I acknowledge that the Bible gives a pastor a right to address modesty, seeing that Scripture admonishes us to be a modest people. I do not acknowledge that the Bible gives a pastor a right to address facial hair, because there is absolutely no New Testament text to base such a position upon.