========================================================================
INSTRUCTED by the Scriptures, LED by the Spirit
Bold Christian Living E-Mail Newsletter, Issue #64
© 1999 Jonathan Lindvall
Permission to re-post in full is granted.

This newsletter is sent out free to those who request it. Please write
from the address you want to use, to the following addresses (NOT
directly to me) to SUBSCRIBE to or to UNSUBSCRIBE from the newsletter.
To subscribe write to <BoldChristianLiving-subscribe@onelist.com>.
To unsubscribe write to <BoldChristianLiving-unsubscribe@onelist.com>.

========================================================================

Thank you to those who support our ministry financially. If the Lord
leads you to contribute or order resources, write to the address at the
end of this newsletter (ordering can also be accomplished on-line).

========================================================================

My son, Timothy, and I just returned from a delightful trip to North
Carolina and Tennessee. We had a wonderful time ministering to saints
there. This next weekend (11/19-20) Matthew Chapman and I will be
presenting the "A Time For Preparation" Seminar in Indianapolis,
Indiana. If you are interested in attending this seminar you can get
further information by calling the hosts at 317-632-2685. I'm looking
forward to meeting many of you from that region who subscribe to this
newsletter.

========================================================================

An issue we haven't dealt with in a while is the issue of modesty. In a
recent correspondence a dear sister wrote the following question about
her husband's directives regarding CLOTHING:

> I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I feel the Lord
> is leading me to wear dresses. On the other hand my husband doesn't feel
> that I need to. He says I can but it is not scriptural. I thought this
> meant that I could but my daughter could wear shorts for play (bicycling,
> etc.) but my husband disagrees. He said either she wears dresses all the
> time and not shorts or wears jeans/shorts. Is there scripture other than
> Deut. 22 that covers this? I could really use your help. I also have
> searched the archives but have not found anything. Thank you for your time.
> I know you are a busy person with a full time schedule.

The first scriptural principle significant to your situation is that
wives are to submit "to their own husbands in everything" (Eph 5:22-24).
Clearly if your husband asked you sin, "We ought to obey God rather than
men" (Acts 5:29). But wherever you are free in the Lord to defer to him,
you are to do so "as unto the Lord" even if his requests seem
unreasonable. As long as they don't require you to sin, you are to
submit.

So although I may not understand his logic, if your husband wants you to
choose either "dresses all the time and not shorts" ever, or jeans and
shorts all the time and dresses never, you need to follow his wishes. (I
know I'm going to get some strong reaction for this one.)

The second principle needing to be considered is modesty. The scriptures
clearly teach modesty. God intends for us to cover our bodies, avoiding
nudity. The primary purpose for clothing is NOT to protect us from the
elements. When Adam and Eve first clothed themselves, it wasn't because
it suddenly got cold (it didn't, as far as we know). Just because
weather might be warm is no excuse for immodesty.

Throughout scripture, nakedness is consistently linked with shame. Even
many Christians argue that modesty is strictly a cultural issue, and
that in some cultures nudity is acceptable. On the contrary, covering
nakedness is a universal principle revealed from the time sin entered
the world. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, they became aware of
their nakedness and were ashamed & afraid (Gen. 2:25; 3:7, 10).

I've heard some fascinating theories of why God apparently rejected the
fig leaf "coverings" (Gen. 3:7) and provided "tunics of skin" (Gen.
3:21). Many have emphasized the first death of an animal, and see the
institution of blood sacrifices. I have no quarrel with this
interpretation, but the scriptures don't say that. I believe the issue
was modesty.

The sewn fig leaves were apparently inadequate in some way. The Hebrew
word scripture uses for the result is "/chagowr/" (a belt). The King
James version translates this "aprons." Other translations use
"coverings," "loin cloths," "loin coverings," and "coverings."

Whatever these "coverings were, the seem to be contrasted with what God
provided (verse 21): "Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made
tunics of skin, and clothed them." It appears God didn't consider them
"clothed" yet, with only these fig leaf "aprons." The word translated
"clothed" here is "/labash/" (wrap around). It has the sense of fully
enveloping the body in clothing.

The passage says God made "tunics" out of the skins. These "coats"
("/kethoneth/") were garments that much more fully covered the bodies of
Adam and Eve. The point is that the clothing God provided covered them
more modestly than the "aprons" of their sewn fig leaves.

Among Christians, today, there is great diversity in opinion regarding
what is adequately modest. Some assume modern swim wear, covering not
much more than the most private body parts, is adequate. Others (like
some Christian in the Middle East) hold that it is immodest for a woman
to reveal more than her eyes, being fully covered and veiled from head
to foot.

Some hold that covering the body closely with cloth is adequately
modest, while others conclude the body's figure must be hidden by the
clothing. Some hold that exposing the skin of limbs or feet is no
problem, while others insist we must not expose arms, legs, ankles, or
toes. Early in American history, there were some who believed it
immodest for a woman to be seen in public without gloves.

I think it is safe to assume that the clothes God provided Adam and Eve
were adequately modest since they are what God supplied. Since we have
no photos or explicit descriptions, we don't know precisely what was
provided, but we have an adequate idea.

Some insist that going without shoes is immodest. While I imagine Adam
and Eve began wearing footwear early on, to protect the bottoms of the
feet from the new thorns, the scriptures don't tell us God provided
such. Certainly we know the Lord Jesus wore sandals (without socks!).
The women in the Bible days needed to have their feet washed, just like
the men, for the same reason.

Some are quite specific in dogmatically arguing that even men must wear
long pants. In this light it is interesting to see how God clothed the
priests. In Exodus 28:42 "And you shall make for them linen trousers to
cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs."
These "shorts" didn't even reach their knees!

How often does the Bible refer to men "girding" their "loins?" (I
counted some 27.) This is apparently a reference to pulling up their
long garment and tucking it into their belt so they could work or run
without having anything entangling their legs. Apparently this was not
considered immodest (God actually directed this repeatedly).

I'm not arguing that we should all wear sandals and shorts, but we must
be careful in insisting upon the specific cultural application of a
principle. The principles of God's word (the ways of God) are universal
instruction for all people, but the specific application must be led by
the Spirit as He applies the principles to distinct cultures and
situations.

Ultimately, modesty is a matter of the heart. But if we have modest
hearts, this will be revealed in the way we dress. We will delight in
covering ourselves and shrink from over-exposing our bodies. We will not
use our clothing (or lack of clothing) to attract attention to our
bodies. We will dress in a way as to facilitate the message of our
lives.

It would be ludicrous for me to try to set standards of modesty for
others' families. But it is just as ludicrous for families to allow
their children and their peers to set their standards of dress (even by
default). I believe each of head of a household must boldly set
standards of modesty for his own family in light of His understanding of
what pleases the Lord.

Yet it is appropriate for God's people to set an example for one
another, and even humbly share their conclusions without imposing them
on their brethren. And I encourage you to be aware that your children
will acquire a sense of modesty early on. If there is something you
don't want your daughter to wear when she's fifteen years old, don't
have her wear that when she's five years old.

Although the principle of modesty is implied for all people, it is
explicitly taught in scripture primarily for women. There is no hint
that Simon Peter's fishing naked (John 21:7) was inappropriate. God even
required Isaiah to go naked for three years (Is. 20:2-3). I'm not
encouraging or defending nudity, but pointing out that modesty, is
apparently much more a significant issue for women than men. (This
doesn't exclude men, however.)

In 1 Timothy 2:9 Paul admonishes women to dress modestly, "with
propriety and moderation." Similarly, Peter addresses his comments about
modesty to women (1 Pet. 3:1-6). In both cases they discourage focusing
on apparel and jewelry, but encourage the inner "adornment" that pleases
the Lord. Like the wife of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-8; 21:2), a woman's
adornment is to be the inner righteousness that is displayed through the
fruit of righteousness.

While a woman need not dress unattractively, let's even ponder this word
"attractive." If we dress in such a way as to "attract" others'
attention, we are in danger of arousing carnal desire. This is one
manifestation of what Paul called "defrauding" (1 Thes. 4:6). It is
wicked to entice interest when it would displease God for us to fulfill
it. Paul warned against causing others to stumble by our freedom (Rom.
14:13-15:3; 1 Cor. 8:9-13).

We need to train especially our daughters (not excluding our sons,
however) to be sensitive to how the way they dress can incite others'
lusts. Jesus said when we cause a weak one to sin, "it would be better
for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in
the depth of the sea" (Matt. 18:6).

Without excusing the sin of those who are tempted, we will be held
accountable for the offenses we cause. In the next verse (verse 7) he
continued, "Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must
come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" People are going
to be held accountable for their own response to temptation. But WOE TO
THE ONE WHO IS THE SOURCE OF THE TEMPTATION!

The word "offense" (Greek: /skandalon/) that Jesus used is the word for
a "trap-stick" (a bent sapling). When we attract others into a
temptation, we have scandalized (offended) them by tripping them up or
capturing them in a trap. May none of us or our families be guilty of
this through the negligence of immodesty.

It seems to me God has three purposes for clothing. The first is
modesty. The second is protection from weather (I'll assume everyone
agrees with this one). The third is for visual (symbolic) communication.
It is appropriate (and inevitable) for us to communicate messages
through what we wear. We communicate identity (ownership), intentions,
and desires/tastes.

In scripture, priests, Nazirites, and life-long servants are examples of
those who could be identified visually by their distinctive appearance.
Such unspoken communication is not foreign to us, either. In our culture
husbands and wives can communicate their marital status visually through
the wearing a ring. Frequently uniforms are worn to identify an
individual with some group (company, club, class, role).

It is important to be alert to the communication one projects through
the clothing worn. I have found that the way I dress can impact the way
I am received. If I dress sloppily, it is difficult for others show
respect to me OR my message. Early on I resisted wearing ties, as an
unnecessarily artificial (useless), and stuffy formality. In time,
though, I found that some people seem unable to receive my message when
I present myself in informal attire.

On the other hand, when I have spoken for groups (Amish, Mennonite) who
see ties as worldly, I gladly refrain from wearing a tie. I am
sympathetic with those who contend that dressing in formal clothing
(ties and suits) is intended to exalt the wearer above common people,
communicating an arrogance that places a barrier between them and the
exalted one. Some suggest this is why doctors and lawyers are expected
to dress "professionally."

Yet others argue that dressing "professionally" is a courtesy,
communicating respect to those you are dealing with. Some argue for
dressing up for "church meetings" because it shows respect for God and
His people. Others see this as hypocritical showmanship, preferring to
gather around the Lord with one another without the formal facades that
"dressing up" projects.

Although I tend to stand with the informal folks in theory, in practice
I recognize a deeper issue of needing to avoid offense. Thus, unless I'm
with folks I'm already pretty intimate with, I try to dress in a way
that will make me least offensive to the most people in that particular
circle.

Hudson Taylor, the founder of China Inland Mission, applied this
principle in breaking with the rest of the missionary community and
dressing like those he was called to minister to. He wasn't "conforming"
to the Chinese out of a need for personal acceptance, but rather to
avoid unnecessary barriers (offenses). In so doing, he eliminated the
counter-productive visual message of perceived superiority (or at least
cultural distance).

Some Christian young people will use the above argument, though, to
spike their purple hair and wear metal-studded leather clothing.
Although I would agree there is probably nothing inherently wrong with
such attire, it sends some messages that reveal a likely heart problem.
First, it reflects an outward focus. We are not to focus excessive
attention on outward adornment. Imagining the time and effort such
appearance represents is difficult.

More, it generally communicates a heart to please (honor) the wrong
group of people. Those who dress this way are in most cases clearly
trying impress their peers, rather than their parents. Yet God called
young people to primarily honor their parents. If they followed
Leviticus 19:3 ("Every one of you shall revere his mother and his
father"), it seems unlikely they would dress that way. In fact, such
dress is an overt expression of a rejection of the cultural norms most
parents embrace.

The Lord has called us to holiness (separation) avoiding conforming to
the world (Rom. 12:1-2). Yet this non-conformity is not a rebellious
flaunting of cultural tastes. We are to dress in such a way to avoid
offending those we are called to serve. For young people, their highest
calling is to serve their parents. If, like Hudson Taylor and his
Chinese, they believe they are to dress in a way to avoid offending
today's youth culture, they will not try to be on the cutting edge of
costume trends, and a spirit of meekness will demonstrate that their
seeming conformity to the world really comes from a heart to serve.

The final principle, as you noted, is the matter of *cross-dressing*.
Deut. 5:22 says, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a
man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an
abomination to the LORD your God."

Many have taken this to mean that women should never wear pants and men
should never wear dresses. The most difficult problem with this is that
in the days this was written, men apparently wore robes that looked much
like modern dresses. I doubt that Jesus wore pants. I have difficulty
imagining that this passage means men should never wear bath-robes.
Although I could be wrong, at this point I conclude that it is
acceptable for our sons to wear robes when dramatizing Bible stories
(like wise men or shepherds in the Christmas story).

However, at the very least God was clearly saying that men and women are
not to dress in such a way as to confuse their genders. In my
estimation, the application of this principle will vary from culture to
culture. In Scotland men still wear kilts during traditional/ceremonial
settings. There is good evidence to assume these are similar to the way
Biblical characters dressed.

Similarly, there are cultures in which women have traditionally worn
very modest pants-like clothing. As I write this, I am in an
international airport waiting for a flight home from a speaking
engagement. We just saw an older Asian couple dressed in what appeared
to be the clothing of their homeland. Both the old man and the old woman
were wearing pants (of a sort). However, although I can't describe how,
the style was different in such a way that there was no confusing their
genders.

In our culture, women have traditionally worn dresses. Although styles
have been changing dramatically over several generations, we still use
figures of people in dresses or pants to distinguish between men's and
women's lavatories. There is enough of a cultural memory of former
styles where this is an appropriate way to distinguish between male and
female.

I think it is wise, and pleasing to God, for us to embrace whatever
means we can to properly emphasize the distinction between the genders.
In fact, this is one more reason (aside from the explicit directions of
1 Corinthians 11:1-16) I believe it is pleasing to God for women to wear
coverings on their heads. Observers are supposed to be able to determine
a person's gender upon immediate observation rather than having to study
them closely. Their clothing is supposed to clearly signal their gender.

In my family, my wife and daughter wear dresses or skirts. I believe
this projects (in this culture) femininity in a beautiful, God-pleasing
way. However, there are rare occasions in which I insist, for modesty's
sake, that they wear pants. There are a (very) few activities that I
believe are proper for women that make dresses or skirts immodest.

I honor those who would contend that any activity in which wearing a
dress would be immodest, is an activity women should abstain from.
Although I am somewhat sympathetic with this perspective, I suspect it
is based on a fallacious circular argument. (The contention starts with
the assumption that only dresses are appropriate, and therefor anything
requiring other than dresses is inappropriate. But this is only true of
the major premise is proven.)

In Exodus 20:26 God commanded, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My
altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it." It is apparent
that certain clothing does not fit with certain activities. Apparently
God was concerned that the priest's robes, normally adequately modest,
would actually be immodest if they had to climb stairs. For some of us,
occasional climbing of stairs may be unavoidable. (No, I don't ask my
wife & daughter to wear pants every time they climb stairs.)

My point is that feminine pants would be wrong for men to wear, but are
not inappropriate for women. Still, I suspect we are wiser to have men
wear the pants, and women wear dresses.

Ultimately the heart issue is, are we willing to surrender our rights,
tastes, traditions, etc. in order to surrender every area, including the
way we dress, to the Lord?

For more discussion on this and related topics, we offer Tape #115
"Training Sons vs. Training Daughters," Tape #703 "The Scriptural Role
of a Godly Wife," and Tape #707 "Scriptural Mandates For Husbands."

========================================================================

You can order our tapes by mail or through our web-site order form,
e-mail, or by phone. The videos cost $25, and audios cost $6 for
individual tapes and $34 for seminar albums (plus 15% shipping--$1
minimum). If you don't mail order with a check we can send the tapes
immediately with an invoice to paid when you receive the tapes.

========================================================================
ARCHIVES: I can't respond to requests for previous issues of the
newsletter. However, for past issues of the Bold Christian Living E-Mail
Newsletter, you can quickly & easily find them in our archives at
<http://www.onelist.com/archive/BoldChristianLiving>. You can select
past issues by date or issue number, or you can search the archives
using any key words you choose.

For those like Juno subscribers who may not have internet access, my
friend Jerry Frisbee has volunteered to serve folks by sending back
issues upon request. You can e-mail him at <CPACANDO@...>.

========================================================================

Unless you specify otherwise, I will assume subscribers who write me
letters are giving their permission to publish their letters and my
responses in this newsletter.
--
God bless you.

Jonathan Lindvall Lindvall@...
Bold Christian Living http://www.BoldChristianLiving.com

PO Box 820 Voice 559-539-0500
Springville CA 93265 Fax 559-539-0804

...He who has begun a good work in you will complete it... Phil. 1:6