Short Pants

[Donnie Gillum]

Short pants (just above or below the knee) for men have become almost standard attire in casual and business dress ... and even in some churches.  I'm getting questions about this, both distant (other states) and locally.  I've been asked what is the difference between them and shorts.  Some are concerned about men in their assembly wearing them in public and being used "on the platform".  Are they wrong, right, acceptable or a non-issue?  Care to comment?

[David Huston]

I just want to say that this has been a wonderful discussion between sincere apostolic men who have previously declared themselves to be like-minded with one another. I appreciate the good spirit with which the entire conversation has been conducted. I think we are all learning as we read and listen to one another. I encourage others to join in. I don't know that this particular matter has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, so I pray the discussion continue.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

However, I am not convinced that we can arbitrarily discard items we feel are of no true importance by simply appealing to cultural change.

Certainly not. But neither can we do the inverse: ignore cultural change in an effort to synthesize evidence for things we do think are important.

To summarize, the nakedness arguments from Isa 47:2-3 and the Priestly Boxer Shorts are in the realm of hmm-we-sorta-might-can-see-a-principle-here. They are definitely not a repent-you-naked-sinner-before-you-go-to-hell sort of thing. ;) In Isa 47, it's not even clear that "thigh" really even means "thigh" (as you pointed out, it looks more like "calf" from Strong and the BDB -- and the LXX too) and it's not completely clear that a woman revealing her locks wasn't equally as bad as revealing her thighs/calves/whatever. In the case of the Priestly Boxer Shorts, my understanding is that only the priests wore these clothes and then only in a ceremonial context when working in the Temple. Since they didn't apply to everyday people in everyday life, it's stretching just a bit to say that the Boxer Shorts passages even communicated a principle for the rest of the people of the day. But in both instances there was mention by God of nakedness associated with thighs, so we need to consider it carefully. So I will concede that while there is little room to be dogmatic about it, neither is it totally unreasonable to draw a line at the knee.

I think forums like these are great. Thank you Bro Frazier for addressing my arguments with kindness, eloquence and even a little "chiastic pizazz"!

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

I think forums like these are great. Thank you Bro Frazier for addressing my arguments with kindness, eloquence and even a little "chiastic pizazz"!

LOL :)
And thank you, Bro. Prevost. I always enjoy a good dialogue, and I have especially enjoyed this one. God bless.

[James Silvers]

Thanks for the good dialog on this subject. As a few final thoughts to keep in mind...

1. Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew he dressed in the cultural norm for a Judean. To raise his dress to a standard may not be correct. If that would be so, then all men should put on the robe.
2. Strict adherence to the Old Testament would mean that pants for men, as we know of today would be forbidden also.
3. The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem had no mention of a dress requirement for Christians.
4. The Piety movement began in the 17th century and has came forward to today. John Wesley was a big influence in the 18th century. His primary "Works of Piety" was prayer, studing the Word, and fasting.
5. "True Holiness" is clearly discribed in Ephesians 4 and says nothing of dress.
6. The modern holiness movement is man's thought on the subject at any given time in history for definitions. The Holy Word has nothing specific - even the Jews of today are debating the true meaning of "ervah" according to some websites I have seen.

I wish you all the blessings of the Lord Jesus to be upon you. We must continue to strive for the maturity that He wants us to achieve.



Michael V. Frazier said:

Mike R. Prevost said:

I think forums like these are great. Thank you Bro Frazier for addressing my arguments with kindness, eloquence and even a little "chiastic pizazz"!

LOL :)
And thank you, Bro. Prevost. I always enjoy a good dialogue, and I have especially enjoyed this one. God bless.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Anyone referring back to the OT and Jesus' mode of dress is in no way advocating the exact manner of dress. The issue is not the form of dress but the extent of covering. The Bible clearly illustrates that nakedness is shameful for mankind. Therefore, we must strive to understand an acceptable form of dress that would prevent all aspects of nakedness from the biblical perspective.

The pattern of OT dress, the form of clothing that Jesus wore, the picture of dress as seen in New Jerusalem, etc., all depict a covering from (at least) the neck to knees. Regardless of the design of clothing, the extent of covering remained generally consistent. Therefore, the argument is not to about the style of clothing, but how much covering should there be. Anything beyond that is a type of straw man argument.

Additionally, arguments from silence are also not valid. Just because the Jerusalem council did not define dress standards does not require it to be an invalid issue. We can just as easily say that it was not addressed because it was not a debated issue at that time. The Scriptures do not clearly define the exact mode and form of baptism or the plan of salvation, but we understand them from the scriptural inferences. The Scriptures do not address the exact design of Roman crucifixion, but we understand it from external sources. The Bible does not formalize a specific manner to hold our religious services, but we can examine it to discern how the early church worshiped. Likewise, although the Bible does not address an exact mode of clothing that all believers should wear, we can infer what we should cover by examining the scriptural references provided. Again, it's not about the style of clothing; the issue is about what should be covered.

Lastly, regardless of Wesleyan holiness arguments, none seems to have considered that Wesley may have been correct. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Simply because we may disagree with certain perspectives of one man's theology, that does not require his entire biblical understanding to be void. We certainly can see the loss of biblical truth in the centuries prior to John Wesley, et. al. And while I believe God has always had an Apostolic remnant, we can still see a progressive return to truth by others trying to understand the Bible.

I do not believe we can use these types of arguments to dismiss or diminish the issue at hand.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, and may God richly bless!

[James Silvers]

I never inferred that nakedness was ok. I am not trying to be the devil's advocate here just that these points need to be considered when discussing this subject. Modesty (kosmios) does not describe a level of nakedness. Its is defined as orderly and well arranged.

When God created man and woman they were naked and He said everything was good. When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge they knew they were naked and covered themselves according to the perfect knowledge they had received from eating the fruit. They made aprons to cover their sexual parts not their whole body from neck to ankle. To a person who believes this was not enough coverage, they interpret the covering that God made ( a coat or tunic) to be because they were still naked. I believe that the coat or tunic had nothing to do with their outward appearance but was a foreshadow of His grace and covering by the blood of an animal sacrifice for their sin of disobedience. It was also a protection from the vegetation and weather which they were going to experience outside of Eden.

God would not have created a tree with a flaw. Adam and Eve knew the truth this is why they covered their private parts and were convicted.

Again I am not advocating any nakedness, only that man's weakness and lack of maturity to look at nakedness and not sin in their mind is the main issue. Having a medical background, I have seen many men and women in various levels of nudity. You simply must control your thoughts so you do not sin.

In some of the writings of Jewish that I have read recently- they too are trying to determine what is God's expectations for "ervah." They are having problems trying to figure out where on a human leg is the "shok." They almost all agree that the coverage should be from the waist to the knee. Some also believe that the coverage below the knee is a "minhag" or just a custom, not the expectation of God.

Yes, to err on the side of extreme coverage would be acceptable however to condemn someone or wrongly judge someone because they do not cover from the neck to the ankles is probably not the best solution for a difference in beliefs. (


Michael V. Frazier said:

Anyone referring back to the OT and Jesus' mode of dress is in no way advocating the exact manner of dress. The issue is not the form of dress but the extent of covering. The Bible clearly illustrates that nakedness is shameful for mankind. Therefore, we must strive to understand an acceptable form of dress that would prevent all aspects of nakedness from the biblical perspective.

The pattern of OT dress, the form of clothing that Jesus wore, the picture of dress as seen in New Jerusalem, etc., all depict a covering from (at least) the neck to knees. Regardless of the design of clothing, the extent of covering remained generally consistent. Therefore, the argument is not to about the style of clothing, but how much covering should there be. Anything beyond that is a type of straw man argument.

Additionally, arguments from silence are also not valid. Just because the Jerusalem council did not define dress standards does not require it to be an invalid issue. We can just as easily say that it was not addressed because it was not a debated issue at that time. The Scriptures do not clearly define the exact mode and form of baptism or the plan of salvation, but we understand them from the scriptural inferences. The Scriptures do not address the exact design of Roman crucifixion, but we understand it from external sources. The Bible does not formalize a specific manner to hold our religious services, but we can examine it to discern how the early church worshiped. Likewise, although the Bible does not address an exact mode of clothing that all believers should wear, we can infer what we should cover by examining the scriptural references provided. Again, it's not about the style of clothing; the issue is about what should be covered.

Lastly, regardless of Wesleyan holiness arguments, none seems to have considered that Wesley may have been correct. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Simply because we may disagree with certain perspectives of one man's theology, that does not require his entire biblical understanding to be void. We certainly can see the loss of biblical truth in the centuries prior to John Wesley, et. al. And while I believe God has always had an Apostolic remnant, we can still see a progressive return to truth by others trying to understand the Bible.

I do not believe we can use these types of arguments to dismiss or diminish the issue at hand.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, and may God richly bless!

[Michael V. Frazier]

By all means, we should never arbitrarily condemn someone for not conforming to a certain level of public modesty. Rightly said! That was not the intention of my reply. My reply was to illustrate that the points raised do not have a truly solid foundation. Any issue worthy of consideration must not be arbitrary or based upon a logical fallacy.

I also did not intend to imply that you inferred nakedness to be acceptable. In fact, that thought never even crossed my mind. I am quite sure that all of us understand that decent propriety is in order within Christianity. The question is to what level that propriety should extend.

We cannot say that Adam and Eve received "perfect knowledge." Although the tree was not flawed and their understanding was opened, in the moment they entered into a state of sin, their capacity for understanding and reasoning became flawed. Logic is an attribute of God, and one of the characteristics that man received when he was made in the image of God. However, man's reasoning is flawed because of sin. We study and use laws of logic in order to correct man's flawed reasoning. Therefore, we cannot use Adam's limited scope of covering to correctly define a godly code of conduct. Instead, we should look to what God Himself utilized. Which of the two has better understanding? Surely God! "Let God be true, but every man a liar." That includes Adam.

Next, we cannot say that the "aprons" Adam devised was merely to cover their pelvic regions. We really don't know. Instead of debating how much Adam's apron covered, why do we even worry about it? If we first realize that Adam's reasoning was already flawed by sin, we then should see it is better to look at the clothing that God made.

If Adam's clothing was justified and acceptable, why then did God bother to make any clothing at all? One reason was surely the foreshadowing of the slain animal as a covering for sin, but it may be also true that Adam's self-covering was altogether unacceptable. Therefore, we ought to look at God's example instead of man's in order to achieve the most accurate image of godly character and conduct.

Lastly, I am not trying to argue for Christian modesty on the basis of the Greek κόσμιος (kosmios). Rather, I am arguing for Christian modesty on the basis of the English understanding of propriety in conduct and behavior. Webster defined modesty as:

1) That lowly temper which accompanies a moderate estimate of one's own worth and importance. This temper when natural, springs in some measure from timidity, and in young and inexperienced persons, is allied to bashfulness and diffidence. In persons who have seen the world, and lost their natural timidity, modesty springs no less from principle than from feeling, and is manifested by retiring, unobtrusive manners, assuming less to itself than others are willing to yield, and conceding to others all due honor and respect, or even more than they expect or require.

2) Modesty, as an act or series of acts, consists in humble, unobtrusive deportment, as opposed to extreme boldness, forwardness, arrogance, presumption, audacity or impudence. Thus we say, the petitioner urged his claims with modesty; the speaker addressed the audience with modesty.

3) Moderation; decency.

4) In females, modesty has the like character as in males; but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. In this sense, modesty results from purity of mind, or from the fear of disgrace and ignominy fortified by education and principle. Unaffected modesty is the sweetest charm of female excellence, the richest gem in the diadem of their honor.

He also defined priopriety as:

Fitness; suitableness; appropriateness; consonance with established principles, rules or customs; justness; accuracy. Propriety of conduct, in a moral sense, consists in its conformity to the moral law; propriety of behavior, consists in conformity to the established rules of decorum

Justly said, Christian modesty includes the avoidance of publicly over-exposing one's self. In the field of medical practice, I respect that you maintain civility and proper conduct so as not to sin. However, while certain aspects of temperance are in order, we cannot hold or expect that same conduct among all others. I'm sure we all know to what extent impropriety can incite. Although we cannot do anything about the unbeliever's lifestyle, we are called to a higher calling. In opposition to Cain's contempt, we are indeed our brother's keeper. The Christian lives by a higher standard. Thus we strive to come to a reasonable, discernible, and logical mode of dress. And using the pattern we are provided from Scripture that God has revealed, I find it rather amazing that so great a contention can prevail.

I realize that others may disagree with my opinion, and they certainly have that prerogative. I am merely trying to present this particular perspective so that everyone can make an appropriate, discerning decision for themselves. God bless!

[James Silvers]

Very good, I did not wish to be too argumentative and hope if anyone has been adversely affected please forgive me. Over the last 39 years of my walk with the Lord I have seen very much abuse over the subject of modesty. You know in the past, men have been condemned by others for wearing suits and ties. Some believe women MUST wear a head covering while in congregational meetings and some do not. These end up being man's interpretation of scripture. Many people have left the true church over these things. I know that the God of the Universe can train his children... if they listen.

As for inference, be careful, man's logic is not always correct. Being trained in human scientific methodology, I can tell you that one can logically prove either side of a subject. I am someone that believes not in the theological study of scripture to the nth degree. The bible has all knowledge that we must know, it is simple, it is His words, if its not there by chapter and verse its not there. Inference by anyone is simply put, you think it means... This can lead one down a slope of incorrectness, after all that is why we have so many christian sects. We are not to add or take from scripture. Unfortunately even the Apostolics have done this.

I have enjoyed the discussion and I believe good points have been made by all. Bro Huston is correct, it is about the principle. Our past training by others has carried on many good and also bad ideas. Culture does come into play whether one wants to admit or not. Past theological ideas also apply, some good, some bad.

This is a fantastic race we are in and we all must persevere. God Bless you all and may we grow further in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit.



Michael V. Frazier said:

By all means, we should never arbitrarily condemn someone for not conforming to a certain level of public modesty. Rightly said! That was not the intention of my reply. My reply was to illustrate that the points raised do not have a truly solid foundation. Any issue worthy of consideration must not be arbitrary or based upon a logical fallacy.

I also did not intend to imply that you inferred nakedness to be acceptable. In fact, that thought never even crossed my mind. I am quite sure that all of us understand that decent propriety is in order within Christianity. The question is to what level that propriety should extend.

We cannot say that Adam and Eve received "perfect knowledge." Although the tree was not flawed and their understanding was opened, in the moment they entered into a state of sin, their capacity for understanding and reasoning became flawed. Logic is an attribute of God, and one of the characteristics that man received when he was made in the image of God. However, man's reasoning is flawed because of sin. We study and use laws of logic in order to correct man's flawed reasoning. Therefore, we cannot use Adam's limited scope of covering to correctly define a godly code of conduct. Instead, we should look to what God Himself utilized. Which of the two has better understanding? Surely God! "Let God be true, but every man a liar." That includes Adam.

Next, we cannot say that the "aprons" Adam devised was merely to cover their pelvic regions. We really don't know. Instead of debating how much Adam's apron covered, why do we even worry about it? If we first realize that Adam's reasoning was already flawed by sin, we then should see it is better to look at the clothing that God made.

If Adam's clothing was justified and acceptable, why then did God bother to make any clothing at all? One reason was surely the foreshadowing of the slain animal as a covering for sin, but it may be also true that Adam's self-covering was altogether unacceptable. Therefore, we ought to look at God's example instead of man's in order to achieve the most accurate image of godly character and conduct.

Lastly, I am not trying to argue for Christian modesty on the basis of the Greek κόσμιος (kosmios). Rather, I am arguing for Christian modesty on the basis of the English understanding of propriety in conduct and behavior. Webster defined modesty as:

1) That lowly temper which accompanies a moderate estimate of one's own worth and importance. This temper when natural, springs in some measure from timidity, and in young and inexperienced persons, is allied to bashfulness and diffidence. In persons who have seen the world, and lost their natural timidity, modesty springs no less from principle than from feeling, and is manifested by retiring, unobtrusive manners, assuming less to itself than others are willing to yield, and conceding to others all due honor and respect, or even more than they expect or require.

2) Modesty, as an act or series of acts, consists in humble, unobtrusive deportment, as opposed to extreme boldness, forwardness, arrogance, presumption, audacity or impudence. Thus we say, the petitioner urged his claims with modesty; the speaker addressed the audience with modesty.

3) Moderation; decency.

4) In females, modesty has the like character as in males; but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. In this sense, modesty results from purity of mind, or from the fear of disgrace and ignominy fortified by education and principle. Unaffected modesty is the sweetest charm of female excellence, the richest gem in the diadem of their honor.

He also defined priopriety as:

Fitness; suitableness; appropriateness; consonance with established principles, rules or customs; justness; accuracy. Propriety of conduct, in a moral sense, consists in its conformity to the moral law; propriety of behavior, consists in conformity to the established rules of decorum

Justly said, Christian modesty includes the avoidance of publicly over-exposing one's self. In the field of medical practice, I respect that you maintain civility and proper conduct so as not to sin. However, while certain aspects of temperance are in order, we cannot hold or expect that same conduct among all others. I'm sure we all know to what extent impropriety can incite. Although we cannot do anything about the unbeliever's lifestyle, we are called to a higher calling. In opposition to Cain's contempt, we are indeed our brother's keeper. The Christian lives by a higher standard. Thus we strive to come to a reasonable, discernible, and logical mode of dress. And using the pattern we are provided from Scripture that God has revealed, I find it rather amazing that so great a contention can prevail.

I realize that others may disagree with my opinion, and they certainly have that prerogative. I am merely trying to present this particular perspective so that everyone can make an appropriate, discerning decision for themselves. God bless!

[David Huston]

Let me take this discussion in a slightly different direction. We know, without having to have Scripture for it, that as a general human reality, viewing certain parts of the human body provokes sexual urges. This is particularly true when it comes to men, who seem to be more visually stimulated than women. But it is also true to some degree for women. This is why nakedness should be reserved for the bedroom of married couples. We also know, from the Scriptures, that God considers full-blown public nakedness to be shameful. So as people who desire to please God, we want to avoid anything shameful, and as people who love our neighbors as ourselves, we want to avoid placing potential stumbling blocks in front of others.

The question then becomes, how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative? We must keep in mind that even the outline of certain body parts can provoke sexual urges, so it may not be sufficient to simply stretch material over some parts. In addition to covering the parts themselves it may also be necessary to cover the shape or outline of the parts (I'm trying not to be too explicit here).

I believe the reason body covering is not taught explicitly in the Bible is because God wants us to cover ourselves for the right reasons. I believe God is very concerned about motives. He could have had Paul write, "You must be covered in loose-fitting apparel from your neck to below your knees and extending down to your elbows. This covering must be made of a material that cannot be seen through, even with intense light." But God did not have Paul or anyone else write such words. Instead, He recorded the story of a man after His own heart, which begins, "And from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold" (2 Samuel 11:2). We don't know how much of Bathsheba's body was exposed to David, and we don't know whether or not it was intentional. But we do know that whatever David saw caused sexual lust to triumph over godly morality. And the effects were tragic. God also recorded Job's statement, "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?" (Job 31:1). Sure, we all have a responsibility to control our eyes and our thoughts, but this does not nullify our responsibility to dress in such a way that we do not provoke sexual desires in others. There is a mutuality here.

It is no coincidence that as the people of our society have begun exposing more and more of their bodies, there has been an increase in sex outside of marriage, whether consentual or not. As apostolic people, and particularly as leaders of apostolic people, we must be careful not to go down this pathway. This is why we need to be able to present a clear doctrine on what constitutes proper dress for people who desire to please God. If our policy is to just sit back and let everyone decide for himself "as the Spirit leads," we will have exactly what we currently have, which is extremes at both ends and everything in between. Even Spirit-filled people need to be taught how the principles of God's Word should be applied in every day life. That's what spiritual leaders and teachers do.

So I go back to my question: how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative? I'm not sure we need additional Scriptures here as must as we do common sense.

[David Huston]

You make my point, Alex. Both of these hypothetical churches have Spirit-filled pastors; yet both teach entirely different doctrines. Both believe, probably sincerely, that they have it right. Are they totally deaf to the Spirit's leading? Why isn't the Spirit leading them into the same truth? The reality is, the primary way the Spirit leads people into the proper applications of truth is by the gift of teaching. As the man responded when Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31). The Spirit works through people. God's people need good teaching. Ultimately each person must decide for himself what he believes the Spirit is saying, but he won't have what he needs to make a wise decision unless he has been given proper teaching.

Out of His grace God gave the church the equipping gifts to bring the church to unity of the faith. In contrast, you suggest that the Spirit would be able to speak to the people without the pastors teaching on a matter which the Bible has little to explicitly say. My concern, born out of experience, is that if God's people are left to hear the Spirit all on their own, the result will be further disunity of faith, not a coming together. I suppose time will tell, although it seems to me that time has already told.

[Alex Thornhill]

A post of mine from last night was somehow lost, and Bro. Huston asked if I could repost it. I am reposting it from memory, here it is:

Bro. Huston said, "... We need to be able to present a clear doctrine on what constitutes proper dress for people who desire to please God. If our policy is to just sit back and let everyone decide for himself "as the Spirit leads," we will have exactly what we currently have, which is extremes at both ends and everything in between."

I responded by saying that to "sit back and let everyone decide for himself 'as the Spirit leads'" should not be an idea that is foreign or fearful to us. "Extremes at both ends" do not come from spirit-led living, but rather these extremes come from ministers, who while possibly spirit-filled are not spirit-led and who are teaching dress standards either from the view of legalism or from a view that says that GOD doesn't care about how we dress. As a spirit-filled believer for the past 8 years I have dressed in a manner that has never caused anyone any offense and there was very little teaching that I needed in regards to this. I believe this topic to be less complicated than what most make of it. In situations where scripture does not explicitly provide a doctrine I believe the best course of action for the saints are to be good examples and for saints to observe the behaviors of victorious Christians. Should the spirit be allowed to move more freely and should ministers not preach things for which scripture does not have an explicit teaching, I believe and trust God's spirit to guide the church to unity in a spirit-led process.

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

David Huston said:

You make my point, Alex. Both of these hypothetical churches have Spirit-filled pastors; yet both teach entirely different doctrines. Both believe, probably sincerely, that they have it right. Are they totally deaf to the Spirit's leading? Why isn't the Spirit leading them into the same truth? The reality is, the primary way the Spirit leads people into the proper applications of truth is by the gift of teaching. As the man responded when Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31). The Spirit works through people. God's people need good teaching. Ultimately each person must decide for himself what he believes the Spirit is saying, but he won't have what he needs to make a wise decision unless he has been given proper teaching.

Out of His grace God gave the church the equipping gifts to bring the church to unity of the faith. In contrast, you suggest that the Spirit would be able to speak to the people without the pastors teaching on a matter which the Bible has little to explicitly say. My concern, born out of experience, is that if God's people are left to hear the Spirit all on their own, the result will be further disunity of faith, not a coming together. I suppose time will tell, although it seems to me that time has already told.

There are two things that I felt to point out from this post. First, the situation in Acts 8 is between Philip and a man, who the scriptures do not say whether or not he received the Holy Ghost. We know the man was baptized, but as for having God's spirit we are not told. Second, God's people are never "left to hear the Spirit all on their own." There is always the testimony of scripture and the testimonies and examples of the saints surrounding them. Also, a wise saint will seek guidance from the brethren. When I am an elder, one day, LORD willing, if a saint should approach me for guidance as to how to dress I will tell them principles that I live by and that my family follow, and should a saint never approach me for guidance I can still be an example to them and I can still preach the scriptural concept of modesty. What I can not and should not do is develop lists of standards and guidelines that do not find their source in the Bible.

-Bro. Alex