Favoritism B/C of Jewelry: The Apostolic Way?

[DAII]

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? - James 2: 1-4

Here we find the apostolic writer, James, exhorting the 1st century church not to play favorites by giving a seat of honor to a rich man clothed in a GOLD RING and FINE CLOTHES in lieu of the poor man in shabby clothing.

Today, the man with the ring could possibly be asked to take it off in some churches while wearing business suits and other fine clothing is expected apparrel ... the guy standing, in the shabby clothing is not only a servant who sits at one's footstool, but may also be "emergent"?

Today, if a worship singer is wearing some bling she's not given a place of honor ... but rather shame?

TWISTED.

[pastorrick1959]

that should not be that case. while do i not wear rings and believe the bible teaches against wearing gold ,,i still wont let favortism be part of me.. treat everyone like you want to be treated i say!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pastorrick1959

that should not be that case. while do i not wear rings and believe the bible teaches against wearing gold ,,i still wont let favortism be part of me.. treat everyone like you want to be treated i say!

I think James was speaking against partiality in either direction ... but I think what we do see is a dichotomy of cultures .... the 1st century church it seems in James hypothetical was more apt to discriminate, play favorites, show partiality ... to a person wearing a ring ...

Notice he does not differentiate in this hypothetical, whether is this man is a believer or not ....

Where does the bible teach believers not to wear gold, Pastor Rich?

[TheLegalist]

THe early first centuries of the CHristian church def thought giving up such was the best thing. Makeup and Jewelry where not looked on as positive but a negative and that one should give up such for his fellow man.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

THe early first centuries of the CHristian church def thought giving up such was the best thing. Makeup and Jewelry where not looked on as positive but a negative and that one should give up such for his fellow man.

To me it seems the opposite of that. The wearing of jewelry by someone entering the assembly was not condemned but considered acceptable and business as usual. What was condemned was preferential treatment for someone (member or guest) or fawning over someone based on their wealth or social position. Much jewelry was not considered sinful but an indicator of wealth or higher social level.