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]

Alex, I don't think anyone here is suggesting we come up with a list of standards that do not have their source in the Bible. I have this feeling that you are arguing against someone who is not participating in this discussion. In the future, if you are ever, God willing, an elder, you will find that passive leadership amounts to no leadership at all. Elders are required to teach, which is an active, even proactive, ministry. The doctrine on how we dress may not be explicit in the Bible, but it is there and is an important biblical doctrine. So again I ask: how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative?

[Alex Thornhill]

David Huston said:

Alex, I don't think anyone here is suggesting we come up with a list of standards that do not have their source in the Bible. I have this feeling that you are arguing against someone who is not participating in this discussion. In the future, if you are ever, God willing, an elder, you will find that passive leadership amounts to no leadership at all. Elders are required to teach, which is an active, even proactive, ministry. The doctrine on how we dress may not be explicit in the Bible, but it is there and is an important biblical doctrine. So again I ask: how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative?

I'm sorry you read an argumentative tone in my posts, I am just trying to point out some thought processes that I am confused by. Also, we would disagree on what "standards" are in the Bible and which are not, since we have a different view of the scriptures in regards to outward holiness, so perhaps my comment about "making lists" is unfair, because you, like myself, claim the Bible to be the source from which you derive your standards of outward holiness.

Also, the leadership scenario that I painted is in no way passive, there is a lot of work that goes into being an example, praying for the saints to be enlightened, and teaching the Bible without the addition of man's traditions. Before I preach there is work I have to do to check my interpretations of the scriptures and make sure that I have a solid exegesis. Could you tell me what you see in this leadership model that I am proposing is passive?

Lastly, as for how much of our bodies should be covered as to not be shameful (to GOD) and provocative (to others) would seem to be an amount of our bodies that is the cultural norm for modesty, and if the cultural norm falls short of GOD's standard then we must make up the difference. The example I keep is to have my knees covered by the shorts I wear in the summer, but a bit of my knee probably shows in the course of a day, it's never been something that has been considered provocative to others and GOD has not told me that it is a shame to HIM either by word or spirit. I also keep the example of always wearing, at the least, a short-sleeved t-shirt, but I have no scripture for this.

-Bro. Alex

[Mike R. Prevost]

James Silvers said:

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.

Thank you Bro Silvers for bringing this back up. It is an unresolved part of my previous posts. I do agree with you on this point. It is an issue if interpretational consistency.

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.

Well, not so fast there, mister! ;) Much ado has been made over the word "katastole" in an effort to find a scriptural basis for prohibiting pants on women, arguing that the etymologies of the components of this word (which is used only once in the scriptures), indicates that it is a "long flowing garment", e.g., "a dress". This has always seemed to me to be a very desperate attempt. They take from this supposed example of ancient female dress, that the Bible commands that modern women must also must also wear long flowing garments. The problem is that if we apply this same mechanism to examples of ancient male dress, we end up saying that modern men should wear robes. It's not a straw man, it's about being consistent in your interpretation. Why is it wrong to apply the same arguments to men's clothing as to women's? Am I engaging in another logical fallacy? Please slap me around a bit if I'm not making any sense. ;)


Michael V. Frazier said:

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. [...] 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.

I do agree that we cannot make arguments from silence, but we must be cautious with our inferences for they are, by their very nature, highly subjective. There is a difference between the scriptures inferring something and people inferring something from the scriptures. E.g., the thing about not dying your hair that I mentioned earlier. Someone who is desperate to find scriptural evidence for their position can make an inference where there is none in the scriptures. The same is probably true of the Priestly Boxer Shorts, katastole, and many others.

Michael V. Frazier said:

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.

Wow! That's a BIG statement! And an honest one. I agree with you. Many things are much more nebulous that we are led to believe. There is a tendency to teach what we believe as though it were absolutely crystal clear in the scriptures, when, in fact, it is not. When you couple this unwarranted dogmatism with strong organizational "peer pressure" (which is amplified under the single-pastor model by focusing all that pressure on one man), then you have the makings of a cult.

[David Huston]

Bro. Alex, please don't think I place a negative connotation of the idea of argument. I am not using the term as we would in describing a shouting match between a man and his wife. In the context of doctrinal assessment, the terms "argumentation" and "debate" describe legitimate methods of working toward a better understanding of truth.

Bro. Prevost, I hope you're not suggesting that the biblical mode of baptism is "nebulous." Even though it is not explicitly stated, I think it's fair to say that the Bible makes it chrystal clear. I disagree with your statement that inferences are by nature highly subjective. The fact is, most of the Bible's doctrine is communicated in story form and therefore requires some degree of inference. This seems to be the Lord's preferred way of teaching, perhaps because it requires us to dig and think and consider and even pray for understanding. This style of teaching does not cloud true doctrine but rather makes it quite clear. They key is putting all the inferences together in a way that makes sense. That is where I find discussions such as this quite useful. Thanks for your insights.

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

Bro. Prevost, I hope you're not suggesting that the biblical mode of baptism is "nebulous." Even though it is not explicitly stated, I think it's fair to say that the Bible makes it chrystal clear.

By "nebulous" I mean "hard to prove". Not sure if you are using "mode" formally. By "mode" do you mean immersion vs sprinkling? If so, this is taught by example (e.g., John, Philip, etc) and possibly by inference via the symbolism of burial in Rom 6. Never by command and there is really no explanation why immersion is important. We immerse because they immersed. But how do you prove that you MUST immerse? I can't prove that, but I am happy with immersing because of example and symbolism. However, if you are talking about "formula" (i.e., what is said), that is even harder to prove. ;) I'll explain why if you're interested. Similar problems are attached to tongues being the initial evidence. There is even a pretty serious "achilles heel" to the multiple elders doctrine. I believe all these doctrines, but the point is that they are not as invulnerable as is commonly taught. I know you probably think that I'm wishy-washy at this point. I'm not. You have to be willing to argue both sides to really see your weaknesses.


David Huston said:

I disagree with your statement that inferences are by nature highly subjective. The fact is, most of the Bible's doctrine is communicated in story form and therefore requires some degree of inference.

Here's a story about inference. ;)

There once was a scientist who studied frogs. One day, the scientist put the frog on the ground and told it to jump. The frog jumped four feet.
So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with four feet, jumps four feet."
So the scientist cut off one of one of the frogs legs. The scientist told the frog to jump. Frog jumped three feet. So the scientist wrote in his note book, "Frog with three feet, jumps three feet."
So the scientist cut of another leg. He told the frog to jump. The frog jumped two feet. So the scientist wrote in his notebook "Frog with two feet, jumps two feet."
The scientist cut off one more leg. He told the frog to jump. Frog jumped one foot. So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with one foot, jumps one foot."
So the scientist cut off his last leg.
He said, "Frog jump. Frog jump. FROG JUMP!" But the frog did not jump at all. Again, he said, "Frog jump. Frog jump. FROG JUMP!". But the frog did not jump.
So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with no feet, goes deaf."

[Mike R. Prevost]

Alex Thornhill said:

A post of mine from last night was somehow lost, and Bro. Huston asked if I could repost it.

To bad that post was lost. I thought it was a great post, Alex.

[David Huston]

Bro. Prevost, when I mentioned the mode of baptism I was speaking of immersion versus pouring or sprinkling. I don't believe in baptismal formulas at all. I wrote an article on this topic which can be found on the Glorious Church website. As for your mention of the "Achilles heal" of the eldership doctrine, I think that deserves it's own forum. How about starting a new forum and explaining what you mean. I think everyone on the network would be interested.

[Donnie Gillum]

Bro. Dave, I agree a new forum for the eldership doctrine would be in order, especially to keep this forum from straying any further off topic. That would leave this one open for others wishing to post...and I can assure you there ARE others watching this one!

[Mike R. Prevost]

I will try to be more on topic. Just a short response to this...

David Huston said:

I don't believe in baptismal formulas at all. I wrote an article on this topic which can be found on the Glorious Church website.

Wow. Just read the short article. I guess I've never mustered the courage to actually say that. I keep holding on to the passive epikaleo verses as evidence that The Name was called over people. It's kind of a thin thread to hold on to. You're right that the "in the name" scriptures don't actually do it and that it's really hard to show that it's a formula. Those are the same difficulties to which I was referring.

David Huston said:

As for your mention of the "Achilles heal" of the eldership doctrine, I think that deserves it's own forum. How about starting a new forum and explaining what you mean. I think everyone on the network would be interested.

OK. I'll play the Devil's Advocate and argue against you guys. It will be familiar. You have written about it already. I just wasn't satisfied.

[Mike R. Prevost]

I have some time tonight and some thoughts I want to get down on this subject before I launch into the “Achilles heal” post I promised.

This thread began with short pants and (predictably) ended up at Holiness Standards in general. I think that's OK because that is the category that the short pants question falls into: should leaders allow short pants or should they add short pants to the list of local prohibitions.

There is a bit of dichotomy in Bro Houston's post that is noteworthy.

David Huston said:

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, [...]

So here is an admission and an explanation of covering not being explicitly taught in the scriptures. I have wondered why there isn't more explicitness in the scriptures on a great many important topics. A little more detail sure would save a lot of work and strife! But I arrived at the same explanation that Bro Houston did: God wants us to seek it out. But also that God specifically does not want us to be mindlessly obeying a rule. Stories and parables teach principles and don't teach rules, and it is very important to know the difference. As soon as you make a rule, the principle of the matter and your motivation goes out the window. They don't matter any more. You are under authority and must keep the rule regardless of your motivations or understanding. That's the way rules work. Eventually you have a well-worn calf-path and end up like these folks:

Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men

David Huston said:

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.

So here is the dichotomy: “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.” It seems like he is saying that since the scriptures are silent on the matter, that it is up to the leadership to teach an explicit requirement such as "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." Else the sheep will go astray and be lost in the tide of worldliness.

But But But, if the Lord thought it wise to leave such explicitness out of the scriptures, why do we think it wise to be so explicit? If the Lord thought it wise to not explicitly specify a line at the knee, why do we think it is wise to do so? Isn't this what the Holiness Standards are trying to do? (at least those dealing with modesty)

David Huston said:

The question then becomes, how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative?

OK. I understand the issue. If folks keep trying to shoot down all the conventional scriptural arguments for Holiness Standards, we won't have any basis for teaching anything!

Not true. I think Bro Houston is right when he talks about stories. David and Bathsheba, etc. The scriptures teach in a way that conveys principle. They just don't give you very much evidence on which to base explicit rules.

God IS interested in motives. In fact, I would argue that God is interested in the motives behind our behavior more than he is in the correctness of the behavior itself! This is seen in Rom 14, one of my favorite chapters.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

And again

Rom 14:22-23 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

There were issues in the early church that were probably very similar to short pants, or dresses, etc. One of them was eating meat. Here and elsewhere Paul says that the only reason one would not eat meat that was offered to an idol is out of consideration of a brother who thought such was sinful. Here Paul is telling us that even though such a thing is not wrong at all, if someone believes it to be wrong, then to them it is wrong (i.e., it CAN be a sin for you but not for me). Now, this does not mean that we are the final arbiters of whether something is sinful, but it does say that if we violate our own conscience (i.e., wrong motive) that God considers it sinful, even though the act itself is not. Because of this Paul even says that it's perfectly fine for there to be a diversity of opinions on a given topic.

Rom 14:1-5 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The key here is for everyone to be fully persuaded in his own mind. That is, live what you believe and don't violate your own conscience, for to do so would be sin. Oh, and get along with each other at the same time!

This idea on conscience is my one of my main beefs with Holiness Standards. It is my opinion that most, if not all, of the typical Holiness Standards are not founded on the scriptures. The scriptural arguments that I hear for them seem like strained attempts to force the scriptures say something they don't actually say. They seem forced and contrived. They usually have sinfulness and condemnation associate with them, i.e., “If you do ____, the Bible says that you have sinned and you can't go to heaven with sin in your life.” (Of course, this also shows a complete ignorance of how salvation works – study Romans 1-8.)

Now, if you teach folks that something is sinful, and they believe it, then if they do it, they have violated their conscience and really HAVE sinned (per Rom 14). So it is entirely possible to corrupt people's consciences and create opportunities to sin where there was none before. It's analogous to a shepherd setting traps for his sheep. This is why it is SO important to make sure that what we teach as sinful really IS sinful.

God has exactly one Holiness Standard and that is Jesus Christ (i.e. Himself). He is the measuring stick. Our righteousness-es falls far short of God's Holiness Standard, and this is why our salvation is not based on our righteousness-es, but on His righteousness. We stay under the “umbrella” of His mercy by our continued faith, love and commitment to Him, as imperfect as those may be. Our heart, conscience, understanding and motives are key elements of this endeavor and these things are extremely individual in nature (per Rom 14). When we try to standardize, homogenize and institutionalize, it gets all fouled up.

David Huston said:

The question then becomes, how much of our bodies must we cover so as not to be considered shameful or unnecessarily provocative?

Oh. I need to take a stab at this. I'm a software developer, so I'll do this in pseudo code. ;)

for each $part in body
{
  if ( (completely_exposing($part) == shameful) or
       (completely_exposing($part) == provocative) ) then

  {

    conceal($part); // so that attention is not drawn to it

  }

}

;)

Oh. One last thing. I don't have a problems with dress codes. These are substantially different than Holiness Standards. Dress codes define the limits of what a certain group deems to be appropriate. Holiness Standards try to define what is sinful and what isn't and that isn't ours to define.

[David Huston]

Bro. Prevost, just to clear up my approach in this matter, we do not set forth rules that force people into having to either obey or disobey. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What we endeavor to do is give a lot of grace (love, acceptance, kindness) as we unveil truth to people. We give people plenty of space to decide for themselves what they believe and make every effort not to back anyone into a corner. At the same time, we do set forth plainly and strongly what we currently comprehend as truth and we make every effort to live it out. By the way, to answer an earlier question Alex had, I would consider teaching by example to be a passive method of conveying truth to people.

Also, we do not put the failure to follow our holiness teachings in the category of sin. What I mean is, we would not tell someone that he has sinned and will go to hell because he wears short pants. But what we would caution him about is that he is obscuring God's glory and placing himself in spiritual danger. Now this may seem like a very strong admonition for a seemingly minor and debatable matter, but my point is, to us, the prupose of our holiness is to glorify God and protect ourselves from sin. To the degree that we pursue and perfect holiness, that is the degree to which we glorify God and protect ourselves. Weak or imperfect holiness is not so much a sin as it is a vulnerability.

There is much more I could say in this regard, but I hope you, and others, are getting the drift. The bottom line is, like Jesus, we have not come to condemn the world but to save it. It is sad to me when the ministry of the Spirit that produces the beauty of holiness is turned itno a ministry of condemnation.

[Donnie Gillum]

I discussed this “short pants” topic with a group of ministers, mentioning that it was most likely that each of us have family that wear them (and therefore could possibly influence our opinions). When asking them if the short pants were right or wrong, none seemed overly eager to respond. Yet, when I asked if it were O.K. for me to wear them, and still preach among them, they gave me honest answers varying from, “I’d be hurt.” to “I would definitely be offended.” While these brethren gave some very constructive input, none could give definite and conclusive scriptural answers (at least while suddenly put on the spot…at the time). It is noteworthy that none said that it would be alright. So for these brethren to say that it didn’t matter would simply not be true (at least to them).

Yet we know that others will differ. Still, there must be a better solution than just “grabbing your partner and swinging them ‘round and ‘round” with “original” word meanings and complicated interpretations. :-) While this may be enlightening to us, I doubt that very few new disciples want to get involved in the deep technical substance, at this point in their journey, anyway. (But we enjoy it!)

As mentioned before, “You don’t have bible for it!” seems to be the biggest argument when objecting to men wearing short pants. And the responses in this forum have demonstrated the difficulty in dealing with it. What a new disciple (or long-established saint) is looking for are easily understood answers with uncomplicated, biblical reasons behind them. For them, simplicity is the key – whether they agree with it or not. Simplicity is also much easier to present to inquiring individuals … and for teaching in the assembly as well. But, simplicity can be hard to come by. That’s why I posted the topic…and the response has been great! Thank you!

For further investigation, I would like to present some points and suggestions for consideration. I am deeply aware of my lack of understanding in many areas, and my inability to lay everything out to satisfaction of all will be obvious. So…your corrections and additional insights are appreciated – just go easy on me, please. :-)

Are there examples in the Word where brethren of old had to deal with situations they “didn’t have bible for”? If so, what can we learn from them concerning this, and other topics?

Here we go!
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
• It seems this decision was made “without scripture”
• (Though what they recommended has scriptural foundations)
• Agreement among the Word, the Spirit…and the brethren, would be an ideal accomplishment!
Are there any “Short Pants” direction, and decision making principles, here?

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
• Paul seems to be saying, “I don’t have ‘bible for this’, but I’ll give my decision, “based on ________ (observation and experience?).
• This was a temporary decision – for the time being
• maybe until they could see where things were headed
• Appears to be subject to be changed later
Are there any “Short Pants” direction, and decision making principles, here?

2Co 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
2Co 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
2Co 8:10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
• Here, Paul seems to avoid or using “authority” and rather give advice (about this situation)

Are there any “Short Pants” direction, and decision making principles, here? :-)