No new converts noticed at the AMC Confernce

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Dora

The tendency for women to enjoy being girly girls and decking out in the finest clothes and hairstyles is completely COOL with me. While I was a UPCer, I wore gravity defying hairstyles and the finest clothes I could afford. UPCers can find amazing bargains on designer clothing. We knew classy styles and had a great time wearing them to conferences, church functions, etc. Nothing wrong with women wanting to look good.

My point is that their efforts to conform to the standards set by their authority figures have led these women to "adorn" themselves in a manner that calls undue negative attention to them. How is this supposed to glorify God and bring others to salvation? I just don't get it....Lord help!

Maybe it's a subconcious form of rebellion against the outward standards. Or to state, I am not a part of this world, but they can't be a in this clique either. What really matters most is the spirit behind it, Dora.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It's only a contradiction, AQP, if the person in question believes that adornment is wrong. If they DON'T, and they're just obeying the rules that they have to in order to belong to a group (e.g., the UPCI, WPF, etc), then you'll still see them adorning themselves--just not with jewelry, since that's specifically mentioned.

It illustrates the fact that living according to a principle gives different results than living according to a list of rules. If a woman likes adornment, and likes pretty, fancy things--she's going to find a way to wear them, and still obey the rules she's been given.

My pastor preached about convictions recently, and he stated that "Your conduct reveals your convictions." Very true. You don't have to ask people what their convictions are. If they're against adornment, they'll dress plainly. If they're not, they won't--whether they have on jewelry or not.

I have a difficult time being hard on a group of women whose husbands and pastors have given them a list of rules, and so they are doing their best to look beautiful within their boundaries and culture. It isn't always their personal inconsistency that's showing.

Since you don't believe that adornment is a sin, then I would assume you're not condemning anyone for adorning themselves. In order to then condemn people for inconsistency, you'd have to assume that they, individually, believe that adornment is wrong, but do it anyway in innocuous ways. I would propose that their convictions are revealed by their actions, and that they don't believe adornment is wrong at all. The apparent inconsistency isn't personal, but imposed by a third party.

Here's my deal: I go to a UPCI church, so there are certain things I have to comply with, like it or not. However, the rules I don't agree with--I just obey them to the letter. I don't try to apply some related principle, because I don't think there is one. I'm perfectly fine with finding loopholes--because I don't embrace a broad principle behind the rule. (Such as the one regarding jewelry--I, like many other women I know, own blouses or sweaters with jewelry sewn on .) When I go to conference or special events, I have to dress more conservatively than I do on a normal basis. That's my paradigm. However, I have a personal set of core convictions that I don't waver from, no matter where we are--and several of those are things that the UPC org. doesn't hold.

Sooooo...it would sting a bit for someone to think I was being inconsistent to wear a big flower in my hair as opposed to a tiara, because I have nothing against tiaras either. (Except that I don't think it would be very tasteful, but that's neither here nor there.) In order to apply the "inconsistent" label, you'd have to first assume that I'm opposed to tiaras.

Well put and I actually think it represents the opinions of a lot of women.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Dora

My point is that their efforts to conform to the standards set by their authority figures have led these women to "adorn" themselves in a manner that calls undue negative attention to them. How is this supposed to glorify God and bring others to salvation? I just don't get it....Lord help!

We've become a culture within ourselves. In "our culture" we don't look odd. So, really, most don't even think that much about how everyone else views them. And don't care.

I have my own opinions about whether or not we should care, but I won't get into them right now.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Yes, it primarily is a minister's conference.

From Dora's description it sounds like it also may have been a conference for those looking to marry a minister as well.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Melody

I didn't notice any price tags on any clothing that I could see, so really how does one know?

I really wonder why it bothers you that people do spend money on themselves? They are blessed of the Lord and as long as they bless the work of the Lord in and through their local church, the rest they can use as they please?

I know this isn't going to be a popular statement, but wonder how much money is spent on the vices of the world? jewelry? makeup? there are many others I could mention,

Sounded like you were reading a boiler plate there. How about if they "bless the work of the Lord" through some means other than their local church? Does that count?

And how does 1 Timothy 2:9-10, read?

"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;

But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works... unless they give some of the gold and pearls and the cash equivalent for the costly array to their local pastor to provide for his horse farm in retirement; then the ladies can really get their kicks shopping!"

The Apostle Paul's counsel to the young minister Timothy concerning just how 'dooded up the sisters are allowed to git.

[*AQuietPlace*]

"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;"


I don't personally believe that Apostle Paul's intent here was to provide a list of prohibitions. I believe he was emphasizing what was important.

BUT. Most Pentecostal churches use that verse to prohibit jewelry. That's what has me

Because how can you use that verse to say - see, the Bible prohibits jewelry - but completely ignore the rest of the passage??

If he WAS making a list of prohibitions, then you have to consider everything that he listed prohibited, not just the jewelry! Which would make the conference attire completely prohibited!

He specifically mentioned broided hair and costly array. And I don't think he would have made an exception if you happened to buy that costly array at a big discount. (A Mercedes Benz is an expensive car, even if someone just gives me one. If he had prohibited driving fancy cars, that would include MB, no matter how much I'd paid for it.) He's not concerned about how many dollars are going out, he's concerned about the image you're projecting to the world around you.

Broided hair and costly array - basically, he was saying... elaborate hairdos and fancy clothes. Which you get in an overabundance at conferences.

The word 'modest' there, too..... everyone just takes that to mean how much skin is showing, or how tight it is. I don't think that's even what he meant. I think he was using the word 'modest' in the same way I would say that I own a modest house, or drive a modest car. Middle-of-the-road, not flashy or extravagantly expensive.


I like the way the NLT phrases it:

And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes.


Some other versions:

English Standard Version (©2001)
likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,


New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,


Bible in Basic English
And that women may be dressed in simple clothing, with a quiet and serious air; not with twisted hair and gold or jewels or robes of great price;


So if his intent WAS to make a list of 'thou shalt nots', if he was making a prohibition on jewelry... then he was outlawing fancy hair and fancy clothing, too.

There's not one single argument you can make against jewelry that doesn't also apply to fancy hair and fancy clothes.

We need teaching to be consistent.

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

"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;"


I don't personally believe that Apostle Paul's intent here was to provide a list of prohibitions. I believe he was emphasizing what was important.

BUT. Most Pentecostal churches use that verse to prohibit jewelry. That's what has me

Because how can you use that verse to say - see, the Bible prohibits jewelry - but completely ignore the rest of the passage??

If he WAS making a list of prohibitions, then you have to consider everything that he listed prohibited, not just the jewelry! Which would make the conference attire completely prohibited!

He specifically mentioned broided hair and costly array. And I don't think he would have made an exception if you happened to buy that costly array at a big discount. (A Mercedes Benz is an expensive car, even if someone just gives me one. If he had prohibited driving fancy cars, that would include MB, no matter how much I'd paid for it.) He's not concerned about how many dollars are going out, he's concerned about the image you're projecting to the world around you.

Broided hair and costly array - basically, he was saying... elaborate hairdos and fancy clothes. Which you get in an overabundance at conferences.

The word 'modest' there, too..... everyone just takes that to mean how much skin is showing, or how tight it is. I don't think that's even what he meant. I think he was using the word 'modest' in the same way I would say that I own a modest house, or drive a modest car. Middle-of-the-road, not flashy or extravagantly expensive.


I like the way the NLT phrases it:

And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes.


Some other versions:

English Standard Version (©2001)
likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,


New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,


Bible in Basic English
And that women may be dressed in simple clothing, with a quiet and serious air; not with twisted hair and gold or jewels or robes of great price;


So if his intent WAS to make a list of 'thou shalt nots', if he was making a prohibition on jewelry... then he was outlawing fancy hair and fancy clothing, too.

There's not one single argument you can make against jewelry that doesn't also apply to fancy hair and fancy clothes.

We need teaching to be consistent.

APQ...good post! And I can agree with most of what you said. The only thing that I might disagree on would be the expensive clothes at a good discount, and, if the Lord prohibited fancy cars, not having one if someone gave it to you.

A Mercedes Benz actually doesn't look any fancier than some of the cheaper cars (not anymore) and would last and last and last. So yes, if someone gave me one, I'd be a fool not to take it. LOL

And just say I was in the market for a good, basic, conservative black skirt. If I found a two hundred dollar one that was marked down say for about forty or fifty dollars, and it was made of very good quality, I would certainly buy it. It would probably last me the rest of my life.

You are right. Jesus wants us to be modest in all areas of our lives. And that really shouldn't be too hard to do.

God bless!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Sarah

APQ...good post! And I can agree with most of what you said. The only thing that I might disagree on would be the expensive clothes at a good discount, and, if the Lord prohibited fancy cars, not having one if someone gave it to you.

A Mercedes Benz actually doesn't look any fancier than some of the cheaper cars (not anymore) and would last and last and last. So yes, if someone gave me one, I'd be a fool not to take it. LOL

And just say I was in the market for a good, basic, conservative black skirt. If I found a two hundred dollar one that was marked down say for about forty or fifty dollars, and it was made of very good quality, I would certainly buy it. It would probably last me the rest of my life.

You are right. Jesus wants us to be modest in all areas of our lives. And that really shouldn't be too hard to do.

God bless!

Well, God didn't prohibit nice cars, so I'd take the Benz, too!

My point, though, is that I don't think it is the dollar amount Paul was talking about. He was talking about appearance. Good quality over poor quality is not really the point. I doubt Paul thought they should wear shoddy clothing. His point was, in my opinion, that they were wearing clothing that was supposed to draw attention to how wealthy they were. And he was cautioning them that that was not seemly.

I know someone who bought a Jag. Their kids were going around telling everyone how much they paid for it, with puffed-out chests. There's nothing wrong with buying a Jaguar, but if you bought it just so that everyone would be impressed, you might have a heart issue. (not saying these people did, but the kids did need an attitude adjustment)

Like I said, I don't think Paul was making a list of prohibitions, but if we are going to take this verse absolutely literally, then let's do it across the board, not just focus on jewelry.

[Sister Alvear]

jewelry falls into the same catagory as fancy hair styles...we can be proud and not have one ounce of jewels on our body....

[Melody]

LOL, *shaking head*
a hairstyle is NOT adornment,

amazingly I usually hear from "outsiders" (not bitter backslidden pentecostals) how beautiful a womans hair is,