Many speak of the danger of looking odd and old fashioned whereas the real danger lies in conformity to the world's standard of dress - a far greater danger to the church's witness and prosperity.
http://www.swrb.com/
Apparently it's okay to wear a bikini as long as you don a headcovering at the beach:
 Straw Sun Bonnet Out of Stock |  Prairie Bonnet Out of Stock |
 Outing Bonnet Out of Stock |  Straw Brimmed Prairie Bonnet Out of Stock |
 Winter Bonnet Out of Stock |  Convertible Apron Bonnet Out of Stock |
 Pretty Prints Prairie Bonnets Out of Stock |  Straw Spoon Bonnet Out of Stock |
 Straw Cottage Bonnet Out of Stock |  Plain Flat Crown Hat $22.00 |
 Slat Sun Bonnet Out of Stock |  Straw Folk Bonnet $34.00 |
 Small Flat Crown Straw Hat $18.00 |  Ladies' 1860 Straw Hat $27.00 |
Here's another approved alternative to conventional swimwear:
I think the straw hats look nice. I don't know why everything else is out of stock except those.
ReplyDeleteMaybe too anabaptistic-looking.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical standards are many. Here's just one that I ponder, especially now that I have been to a fair amount of beaches where modesty and decency were not in line with it:
ReplyDeleteRom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I have found now after so many years that my flesh is still hostile to God nor does it submit to God's law; indeed, "it cannot".
Seriously, this is what these people are focusing on?
ReplyDeleteIt's the end of civilization as we know it!
ReplyDelete"I think the straw hats look nice. I don't know why everything else is out of stock except those."
ReplyDeleteBecause hats are for heretics, John. God's people wear bonnets.
Dagon is traditionally displayed wearing a hat eerily similar to the style favored by the Papacy - plus word has it that he's really dope on the breakers, being half fish and all.
ReplyDeleteWhich begs the question, why would a mer-man wear a hat? Seems about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on whether Christian women today should wear head coverings?
I seem to recall reading Sproul argue in his book, That's a Good Question, that they should wear head coverings.
Hi Ito: I'll take a shot at answering your question about head coverings.
ReplyDeleteDr. Gary Chapman, in his New Testament History and Theology course (available through Covenant Seminary's "Worldwide Classroom" - registration is required, but it's free to download and listen), discusses this question specifically in the context of understanding "trans-cultural" application of texts like this one:
We have our own set of cultural contexts, be it Ghana, Taiwan, or the southern United States. Wherever our particular cultural context is, that is our backdrop. We need to decide as we approach Scripture what Paul was saying to the audience and what God would have that say to us today. We do not have some of the same problems that you find in 1 Corinthians. There is not the same issue with the resurrection in most spheres of Christianity today. There are not the exact same issues with marriage today. There are ramifications of it, and there is a lot of overlap.
Probably one of the most difficult texts in all of 1 Corinthians to apply to today is in 1 Corinthians 11 where it talks about head coverings. It says that women are to cover their heads in worship, and it gives a variety of reasons for that. It also says that men are not to cover their heads in worship. We still have a legacy of that in our chapel. The proper thing in chapel is for men to take off their caps. Otherwise it is disrespectful. But we do not generally ask for women to wear head coverings. We are not doing exactly what is stated in 1 Corinthians 11. There are some churches that apply it exactly, word for word. I would argue that you have to understand what that meant in Paul’s day.
Let us start with the easier one, which is about the men. Why does Paul say that men should not have their heads covered? Why is that even an issue? I have a great picture of [the emperor Caesar] Augustus as a priest. He is wearing the priestly garments, and he has this thing over his head. If you look at most ancient statues of priests, their heads are all covered. That is not to say that the whole worshiping community was that way. It is just the priests whose heads are covered. When Paul explicitly says men are not to cover their heads, there are probably cultural associations that we do not understand. We do not have priests in that same sense who are conducting pagan religions to a whole variety of different deities, none of whom is truly God. That is different. That might be one of the issues there.
With regard to women’s coverings, he repeatedly shows that this is a sign of submission and respect. Ladies, when you wear a hat today, are you thinking about submission and respect? Some of you might think this, depending on your cultural context. The vast majority of people who wear hats are not thinking of it as submission. It seems to me that in this context there is a trans-cultural application of this. Basically, it is simply to say that men are to submit to Christ and show that is their area of respect. Women are to submit to their husbands. That is what the passage says. That is the trans-cultural aspect. They are to have some way of showing that that is the way that all of this goes. In our society the wearing of a hat no longer shows that. The outward display is not important, but perhaps the inward display is important if you are going to be consistent in understanding 1 Corinthians 11. The point is that you take what is trans-cultural and you apply it to your culture today. It may look different for each culture.
ITO SAID:
ReplyDelete"Any thoughts on whether Christian women today should wear head coverings?"
Short answer: no. The symbolic significance of dress codes is variable from one culture to the next.
Thanks for the replies.
ReplyDeleteI found Sproul’s comments on Amazon (“Look Inside” feature).
ReplyDeleteHere’s what he wrote,
“I am convinced that when Paul says the women are to cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God created male and female. It would seem to me, using a principle of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if there’s ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation. I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it’s [sic] principle. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.”
Sproul is confusing a principle with a token of a principle. The principle is transcultural, but the token is culturebound.
ReplyDeleteSymbolism is only useful if it performs a symbolic function. If the original significance of the symbol is lost, then it's pointless to retain the symbol for its own sake. That disregards the purpose of the symbolism.
And I wasn't discussing whether headcoverings are socially "acceptable," but whether they are still meaningful.
Jeff Pollard's book declares confidently that everything started downhill when women started wearing sleeveless swimsuits and mixed bathing happened. While he claims to not have a legalistic approach or standard about this subject this derives wholly from his unwillingness to positively say what alternatives to contemporary swimwear would be.
ReplyDeleteI have friends who have done atheltic swimming who made the simple point that contemporary swimwear comes in two categories: 1) actual swimwear for swimming in an athletic context and 2) "poser" suits. The trouble with an argument of the sort Pollard makes is that he forgets that how one conducts one's self in a suit is important. It's not as though people never managed to be sexually immoral when swimsuits were up to Pollard's standards of modesty.
it's no irony the Pollard book was lent to me by an unusually earnest young fellow who was convinced the problem was women weren't dressing modestly enough to keep him from stumbling. The problem wasn't that women were really not dressing modestly around him, for the most part. :) Fortunately God eventually graced the guy with a wife and he's had quite a bit less to spout about womens' modesty since he married.
"The trouble with an argument of the sort Pollard makes is that he forgets that how one conducts one's self in a suit is important. It's not as though people never managed to be sexually immoral when swimsuits were up to Pollard's standards of modesty."
ReplyDeleteExactly. The type of appeal that Pollard is making relies on a hazy, rose-tinted perception of "the good old days" of Victorian fashion. What is lost on him is that behind closed doors human depravity continued unabated even if the table legs were covered over.
RC Sproul's views live on in his son RC Sproul Jnr who has written the foreword to a book by Gary Sanseri on headcoverings that is on special offer at the moment:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bhibooks.net/catalog/item/4154109/4034293.htm
Michael Marlowe of bible-reasearcher also seems to have some insightful thoughts on the matter although I have not read all of it:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html
EA, yeah, pretty much. Some of these people don't realize that just because authors like Jane Austen don't get into D. H. Lawrence details about fornication that they don't ever discuss fornicators. It's not like Wickham's held up as a model of self-control in Pride & Prejudice.
ReplyDeleteThe Pollard book annoyed me not just for its content but it's Doug Phillips foreward. Phillips declared that these days things have declined so much with piercings and tattoos and such that it has become impossible to discern the "true Christian" from the "savage tribesman". Since my father's an American Indian who likes Charles Spurgeon I found Phillips' contrast and polemic about "true Christian" dress to be profoundly aggravating.
"...these days things have declined so much with piercings and tattoos and such that it has become impossible to discern the "true Christian" from the "savage tribesman". Since my father's an American Indian who likes Charles Spurgeon I found Phillips' contrast and polemic about "true Christian" dress to be profoundly aggravating."
ReplyDeleteI can understand your frustration to a certain extent. However, take comfort in 1 Sam 16:7 - "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.'"