Modesty as described by the General Youth Division

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tstew

Jeffrey, I'm not sure I follow you all the way on this.
Who else would they use to advertise a hair-care product? I would expect someone fit to be extolling the virtues of any exercise product,etc...

I don't think the role of true modesty is to eliminate everything that is attractive about a person. At the end of the day, I think that the most universally attractive feature is a very pretty face (hence the supermodels you mentioned). I obviously don't think that such a person has an obligation to put on a burka so as to not attract anyone.

I don't believe that true modesty is just about other people and carrying yourself in a way that nothing about you has any chance of being remotely attractive to others. I think true modesty is about the individual themself, their motives, what they wish to project, and what they know they are attempting to emphasize.

POTD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excellent, Stew! Well said!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

PO: Yes, but long hair is sensual. That was my point. What hair do they use on shampoo commercials? Supermodels? Cover girls? All long hair (normally).

Tight jeans? Maybe. Is it attracting an inordinate amount of attention? Cleavage lines? I personally think it's not modest (I'm a guy and know where my eyes are driven). But, the extent of that will be up to the wearer. This doesn't mean tank-tops, shorts, shorter skirts, etc are immodest. Modest and appropriateness go hand-in-hand. Most of those things are immodest at church or at work, but on the weekend out at a theme park, probably okay.

AQP asked some great questions about modesty one day. We were searching the scriptures for the Biblical "skin patrol." The Bible is silent. Most of the skin was controlled by custom and culture. It still is. This is why it may not be immodest to be an African man with no shirt on (or a Greek for that matter).

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Please re-read and reconsider your response.

Jeffrey,
I'm sorry that I skimmed over your post in haste. I agree that come things would be more appropriate in their various settings. However, some of the things you listed would still be immodest for me. I would prefer to attend a more Conservative minded church. But, you are right - the extent of that would be up to the wearer.

My daughter probably out dresses everyone in our church. She is very stylish. BUT, she does not allow that to distract her in her worship. She sings on the platform and thinks nothing of stopping her singing when the spirit of God moves on her to lift her hands and cry, etc. So, I think that if how you dress is modest and it does not distract your service and worship, dress according to your preference and convictions.

I don't recall any information where the Jewish people uncovered themselves in the manner of the Greeks or the African man. Well, aside from men fishing. It seems that our Judeo-Christian customs have always correlated on many matters. I know that Tz'ni'ut in Hebrew applies to modest clothing, which means your body must not be exposed, still allowing the person to dress stylishly.

I read on a Jewish website that the Bible not only prohibited removing all clothing, but it also prohibited wearing garments belonging to the oppostie sex (Deut 22:5) as it may lead to unnatural lusts, lascivious thoughts and a more free intermingling between the sexes. Just wanted to put that here as I found it interesting.

I wouldn't think we would reach into Greek or any other unchristian culture to teach us about modesty in the Bible. It certainly wouldn't be where I would search to try and define Biblical modesty.

Holiness begins in the heart, but I don't believe it stops there. Whatever is in your heart will show on the outside in your manner of behaviour and in your dress.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by tstew

Of course, with all that teenaged energy, there’s always the probability of spectacle. Young people came dressed in their “Youth Congress best” (that’s a multiple of 10 greater than your “Sunday Best”). Wednesday night forward, young people wore a wild display of outfits worth remembering. The girls displayed ankle-length dresses, unusual hair accessories, showy glasses, and, of course, the world’s fanciest hairdos. The guys were seen in vests (with and without suit coats), white shoes, and bow ties—though rarely as a combination.

I'm sorry but I don't see this as a definition of modesty but rather as a discussion of style. That appears to be the point of this paragraph. The other style elements listed would probably not be included if the goal was strictly to convey modesty.
Now, if the General Youth Division instructed the young ladies in advance to wear ankle-length skirts, I would be much more inclined to accept it as "their description of modesty".

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Interesting:

• Thursday morning featured a special “Apostolic Identity” session with Brent and Rachel Coltharp that not only celebrated and affirmed the Bible basis for our worldview, but also challenged the teens to live it out loud when they returned home.

So, this isn't just a DAII pinned expression - it's being propagated.

So what does everyone think about this?

Does there really need to be a session on "Apostolic Identity"?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

So what does everyone think about this?

Does there really need to be a session on "Apostolic Identity"?

Of course there has to be ..... this was a part of the response to a directive by the General Board.

Submission to elders on such matters are never questioned.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

So what does everyone think about this?

Does there really need to be a session on "Apostolic Identity"?

I think that I would need to have been in attendance to see what it all entailed. I believe we do have an "Apostolic Identity" as we are a spirit filled church. We attended a function at a local AOG church and whatever it was that I felt there, I knew that I didn't want to be a part of that.

We have discussed scriptures that we are not entirely in agreement on the interpretation, but I feel that if God has lead me to a place and instructs me to stay, I must take notice of that and trust His guiding hand. Tearing down the place He brought me or being party to that is not going to work for me.

I can see God leading my younger sister. She is on a journey. I am trying to be very careful in our conversations. Where ever she is going and however long it takes her to be settled in her heart, I want her to know it was God. I will not try to persuade her one way or the other.

I can't get on the bandwagon with Daniel on this crusade. We will both have to answer to God someday. I'm not going to stand before God and say that I got in the way of His direction for any saint of God - anywhere - in any organization.

Having said that, I'll stop participating in the conversation as I'm clearly not in agreement or on board with the agenda.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I didn't think the article was addressing modesty. But when the article describes over-the-top hairdos, extravagant clothing, etc., it begs the question...... do we truly believe in biblically defined modesty?

Just please, don't harp on me about my elbows or knees showing, if you're going to dress extravagantly. It does not compute.

*not addressing that last comment to anyone in particular, just our general belief system.

It was an Apostolic fashion show. I was there this past summer. The most wildest thing I was was some lady (in her 20's or 30's) had a mo-hawk completely out of rolls. So think a mo-hawk, but instead of tall spiked hair, it was a row of rolls down the middle of her head, my wife and I dubbed it "The Roll-Hawk".

When we went the the mall to shop the following day, you could easily tell the UPC women from "secular" women: typical bun or long hair and skirt, but the men on the other hand, looked no different than any other "secular" man in the mall.

I thought we were all supposed to "be separate from the world" not just the women....?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that I would need to have been in attendance to see what it all entailed. I believe we do have an "Apostolic Identity" as we are a spirit filled church. We attended a function at a local AOG church and whatever it was that I felt there, I knew that I didn't want to be a part of that.

We have discussed scriptures that we are not entirely in agreement on the interpretation, but I feel that if God has lead me to a place and instructs me to stay, I must take notice of that and trust His guiding hand. Tearing down the place He brought me or being party to that is not going to work for me.

I can see God leading my younger sister. She is on a journey. I am trying to be very careful in our conversations. Where ever she is going and however long it takes her to be settled in her heart, I want her to know it was God. I will not try to persuade her one way or the other.

I can't get on the bandwagon with Daniel on this crusade. We will both have to answer to God someday. I'm not going to stand before God and say that I got in the way of His direction for any saint of God - anywhere - in any organization.

Having said that, I'll stop participating in the conversation as I'm clearly not in agreement or on board with the agenda.

PO, I do not apologize for commenting on a branding campaign agenda that is taking root to redefine or ignore the diversity of our Apostolic heritage while hundreds are hurt and stumble thinking they will never measure up ... never restoring their relationship with God because of the stigma of a system that seeks to promote exclusivity and a monopoly on sound doctrine and the Kingdom of God.

This recent AI campaign is very much the vernacular, mantra and "fleshly program" of a few ... especially the quest of one man, DKB.

It seeks to mark and disfellowship ... and ultimately has affected the very eternity of many in its many forms thru the years ....

as legalism often results in damaged fruit.

That m'am should also fill you with the indignation you consistently portray if as much a wayward comment is made of the fellowship YOU AND I LOVE ...

The crusade is to comment with accuracy on an existing and documentable AI campaign and crusade that is very much the crossroads or a cul-de-sac of a movement... as my non-UPCI brother, Mark Bassett readily admits. This identity was codified nearly a decade after the merger and is being misrepresented in the sound Scriptural teaching of a segment of the Body of Christ .... While seeking to erase the contributions and views of the modern OP pioneering leadership .... and while marking men of God who don't necessarily apply various principles in the same manner.

Holiness is important and needs to be examined in light of history of the His Bride the Church and most importantly the Word of God.

Truth does matter.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...
Having said that, I'll stop participating in the conversation as I'm clearly not in agreement or on board with the agenda.

I dunno, P.O. But wouldn't that actually be a great reason to stay in the conversation?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Justin

It was an Apostolic fashion show. I was there this past summer. The most wildest thing I was was some lady (in her 20's or 30's) had a mo-hawk completely out of rolls. So think a mo-hawk, but instead of tall spiked hair, it was a row of rolls down the middle of her head, my wife and I dubbed it "The Roll-Hawk".

When we went the the mall to shop the following day, you could easily tell the UPC women from "secular" women: typical bun or long hair and skirt, but the men on the other hand, looked no different than any other "secular" man in the mall.

I thought we were all supposed to "be separate from the world" not just the women....?

An "Apostolic mohawk" would most definitely catch the Apostle Paul's attention ...

Yes, Justin, the modesty issue seems to be mostly weighted on the females but only when it comes to the criteria of a checklist.