The names of the preachers in the exchange are withheld, but they all preach in ostensibly conservative churches of Christ. However, they do not represent sound preachers or the truth. At the point of the following posts, I had dealt with a number of objections to my answer regarding shorts in the assembly and I had presented a brief exegesis of I Timothy 2: 9.

Don Martin to the list:

The below questions submitted by Edward are good questions, very relevant to our study. Since some have taken the expressed position that culture determines what is decent, I think Greg and I are obligated to answer Edward's questions. Again, I stress that as far as fashion or style itself is concerned, I concede that culture determines the prevailing norms. The fashion to which I refer is morally indifferent. However, even in this circumstance, culture determines what is appropriate for a given occasion. In most cases, the culture in America would suggest a suit and tie for the male in a situation requiring dress wear. Different countries and cultures have different attire that they designate as dress wear. The Christian should wear attire to the worship assembly that is reflective of respect and reverence for the occasion.

Edward wrote and I answered (his questions are primarily addressed to Greg):

Let me take you where you probably don't want to go. In New Guinea, the males run around with nothing more than a penile sheath that is usually tied to a string about the waist. By THEIR culture, they consider themselves to be modest.

1. Are these penile sheaths modest apparel by God's standard?

Answer: No, such "attire" is indecent according to the principles found in God's word that regulate and define decency of dress (cp. Ex. 28: 42, I Tim. 2: 9).

a. If not, then please explain why.

Answer: God has shown that he wants the "private parts" of the human body covered as far as public application is concerned. "Thigh" is associated with "nakedness" in the case of functioning priests. I believe such a designation is to be used as a guideline for men and women in the determination of the coverage their attire provides. Such principles preclude lewdness and incitement to lust.

b. If they are not modest apparel by God's standard, tell us why, please.

Answer: Same as above.

2. If an American evangelized there, could he wear a penile sheath and nothing more and be modest before God?

Answer: No.

a. If not, then please explain why.

Answer: Such is indecent attire. Such indecent attire is not only forbidden in the case of the American in that country and culture, but is also wrong for those of that culture. I say this because matters of right and wrong within themselves do not know cultural exceptions.

b. If he could, then please explain why.

3. Tell us, Greg, if a penile sheath meets God's standard for decency or modesty.

Don and Greg, the other members and myself eagerly await your response on these three questions and their respective parts. Greg, you've continued to argue that local culture determines decency (no sin) or indecency (sin). We're patiently waiting, Greg.

Don comments:

As to what I teach: If a matter is inherently wrong and sinful, cultural endorsement matters not, it is still wrong and sinful! I maintain that for a woman in the Philippines to appear in public the way Greg contented is sinful, notwithstanding any cultural approbation of that country. Greg has advocated situation ethics, no doubt about it.

Again, Edward's questions are good and deserve answers, both by Greg and me.

Ray to the list:

If there were ever a doctrine that starts with a conclusion and seeks scriptural justification, then much of the controversy on "modest" apparel is such an one.

On the one hand, we are told by the some that one's garment must extend to the bottom of the thighs from the loins. Wow. That would be the same as bermuda shorts but methinks that those advocating the priestly standard would not accept that conclusion. In such assemblies, a woman wearing shorts would be refused. Now, I wonder if that same assembly would refuse a woman wearing gold, with braided hair, or a man wearing an expensive suit. If so, under what circumstances?

The argument for "public and private" is advanced, but, again, I think it would be abandoned if one suggested that couples could gather together in the midst of a doctor's office and disrobe and that would be acceptable. Nope, public or private is not the point. Besides, in the case of Peter it was quite public when he was seen by the Lord stripped "naked." In public so that all could see. Furthermore, it was not at night as we were asked to believe but in daylight. (John 21:4)

An apostle's adding a robe is posited as evidence that he needed to add garments to go swimming. Anyone knows that adding the garment increases the danger of drowning. One would logically think that adding the robe was not done for the sake of the swimming but merely because he wanted it when he got to shore. It was too late for the "modesty" argument as he had already been seen by the public. Furthermore, Jesus upbraided him for his pubic display by saying (I wish I could tell you but those words are ommitted from my bible).

Now, what should we teach? We should teach that one should dress with shamefastness and sobriety. That might allow for some to wear gold, expensive clothes and have braided hair. It might also allow for the dreaded shorts (while playing tennis, for instance.)

I know women who wear braided hair to worship God because they think it is more modest than long, flowing, hair. That violates the very point of the advanced scripture. That is, unless we are using the scripture as a proof text rather than to take it in its context. We do misuse it when we accept braided hair at occasions of worship when it is identified as non-modest and never accept a woman in slacks which is not mentioned at all. We have more confidence in our application than we have in the words of the text.

I believe the apostle added the robe because it was appropriate for his social contact with Jesus. Appropriate behavior and modest apparel may or may not be the same thing, but we dare not make laws that God did not make. I think that is what we do with that issue in search of a scripture.

Don Martin to the list:

Questions are excellent in pin pointing, testing, and revealing positions. Edward submitted some good questions to Greg and me. I answered mine but I have not seen any effort by Greg to answer them. I wonder why? There are several types of people on this list. One is the capable and forthright. Another is the one who advocates error and then will not face the problems his position has introduced. Is Greg the latter? I have charged Greg with advocating situation ethics. Greg has taught situation ethics because he has taken the position that a matter wrong within itself (a woman appearing in the public worship exposed from the waist up) may do so in the Philippines and not violate I Timothy 2: 9. His contention has been that since such lack of attire is not considered wrong in the Philippines (according to Greg), that culture makes the lack of attire spiritually acceptable. I have disagreed with Greg's teaching for five years; yet, Greg persists. Greg has offered several smoke screens. Greg has said that he meant to present a mother nursing her baby; however, this has not been the issue and the scenario. Greg also deflected attention away from the real issue by accusing me of misrepresenting him, he later retracted this charge when I pressed him on list for proof of his accusation. Greg has confused morally indifferent fashion with morally significant attire that covers what God wants covered. Greg has also apparently not realized that I Timothy 2: 9 addresses two matters: appropriate clothing and attire that covers what God wants covered.

Don Martin to the list:

While we wait to see if Greg is going to answer Edward's good questions pertaining to attire, I thought I would consider a matter with you. Every position and all teaching that we do should regularly be tested to ascertain if it holds up under examination. One way I test my beliefs is by subjecting them to possible application difficulties. If, for instance, I believe as Greg and some others on this list that a culture can make indecent attire decent, I would have serious problems with Edward's below scenario:

Edward wrote:

Let me take you where you probably don't want to go. In New Guinea, the males run around with nothing more than a penile sheath that is usually tied to a string about the waist. By THEIR culture, they consider themselves to be modest.

Don comments:

Most of us cannot imagine for even a moment a Christian so attired in the culture of New Guinea. In addition, most Christians (I hope) would not attempt to pronounce such lack of coverage on the part of those in the culture of New Guinea as in harmony with I Timothy 2: 9. Yet, this is the precise consequence of Greg's situation ethics. If not, why not? Several have come out on list and boldly defended the culture argument.

Years ago, I became very concerned regarding what some (not all) preachers believed and practiced while they were being supported by American churches in foreign fields. Please listen carefully, I do not believe in attempting to change morally indifferent culture, but preachers must address cultural practices that involve sin. This is the very impetus for the original discussion between Greg and me about five years ago. I warned then and I repeat the warning now, elders had better know what the men believe relative to culture when they lead the church into supporting these men. You see, if Greg were being supported to go to the Philippines, he would not say a word against a woman appearing exposed from the waist up in the public assembly (if such happens in the Philippines). Can you even imagine what the assembly might be were Greg was preaching in the Philippines? As I have said, if you can attempt to justify the exposed from the waist up, why not exposed from the waist down? Greg continues to contend that exposed from the waist up in the Philippines is in harmony with the decent attire presented in I Timothy 2: 9. It is my hope and prayer that Greg will now see where his situation ethics has taken him and that he will recant.

Don Martin to the list:

Greg remains totally silent. I answered the questions posed by Edward, but Greg has had not a word. This is the same way Greg did about five years ago, he came into the discussion full of fire, but when the fire produced heat, Greg disappeared only to surface regarding his exposed from the waist up woman in the Philippines during this exchange. However, Ray has rejoined the discussion. I never have been able to follow Ray's logic and progression of thought very well (perhaps this is a bad reflection on me).

Ray wrote:

If there were ever a doctrine that starts with a conclusion and seeks scriptural justification, then much of the controversy on "modest" apparel is such an one.

Don reflects:

Ray's opening words blow my mind. The scripture is I Timothy 2: 9. This scripture sets forth both appropriate for the occasion and decent attire. The question is if a woman in any culture exposed from the waist up and thus attending a public assembly is decent (her clothing or lack thereof may be pronounced appropriate by her culture).

Ray continues:

On the one hand, we are told by the some that one's garment must extend to the bottom of the thighs from the loins. Wow. That would be the same as bermuda shorts but methinks that those advocating the priestly standard would not accept that conclusion. In such assemblies, a woman wearing shorts would be refused. Now, I wonder if that same assembly would refuse a woman wearing gold, with braided hair, or a man wearing an expensive suit. If so, under what circumstances?

Don responds:

Here is a perfect example of why I cannot follow Ray's thinking. Exodus 28: 42 shows that the "thighs" were considered "nakedness." This is the point. I have not the slightest idea what Ray is saying in the above. I Timothy 2: 9 is not simply condemning gold, braided hair, or a relatively expensive suit. The whole point of the verse is teaching against attire and presentation that distracts from the worship and constitutes ostentation (vs. 8ff.).

Ray continues:

The argument for "public and private" is advanced, but, again, I think it would be abandoned if one suggested that couples could gather together in the midst of a doctor's office and disrobe and that would be acceptable. Nope, public or private is not the point. Besides, in the case of Peter it was quite public when he was seen by the Lord stripped "naked." In public so that all could see. Furthermore, it was not at night as we were asked to believe but in daylight. (John 21:4)

Don remarks:

What is Ray arguing based on his understanding of John 21: 4-7, anyway? Is he saying that a Christian may strip off totally all attire and so appear publicly? How far are Ray and Greg willing to go in their culture argument?

Again, Ray's mind and mine work entirely differently. Again, this may simply mean that Ray is more intelligent than I am. However, I do not think it takes much intelligence to know that the scriptures teach that certain parts of the human body are to be covered in public. Since Exodus 28: 42 associates the thigh with nakedness, I believe the verse may be used as a guideline. I should think that all Christians would agree that the thighs and chest area (and in between) of a woman are to be covered in any culture, based on biblical principles.

Since Greg has not answered Edward's good questions, perhaps Ray would like to commit himself. I shall insert below the questions along with my answers. Let us see if Ray is braver than Greg:

Edward wrote and I answered:

Let me take you where you probably don't want to go. In New Guinea, the males run around with nothing more than a penile sheath that is usually tied to a string about the waist. By THEIR culture, they consider themselves to be modest.

1. Are these penile sheaths modest apparel by God's standard?

Answer: No, such "attire" is indecent according to the principles found in God's word that regulate and define decency of dress (cp. Ex. 28: 42, I Tim. 2: 9).

a. If not, then please explain why.

Answer: God has shown that he wants the "private parts" of the human body covered as far as public application is concerned. "Thigh" is associated with "nakedness" in the case of functioning priests. I believe such a designation is to be used as a guideline for men and women in the determination of the coverage their attire provides. Such principles preclude lewdness and incitement to lust.

b. If they are not modest apparel by God's standard, tell us why, please.

Answer: Same as above.

2. If an American evangelized there, could he wear a penile sheath and nothing more and be modest before God?

Answer: No.

a. If not, then please explain why.

Answer: Such is indecent attire. Such indecent attire is not only forbidden in the case of the American in that country and culture, but is also wrong for those of that culture. I say this because matters of right and wrong within themselves do not know cultural exceptions.

b. If he could, then please explain why.

3. Tell us, Greg if a penile sheath meets God's standard for decency or modesty.

Greg, the other members and myself eagerly await your response on these three questions and their respective parts. You've continued to argue that local culture determines decency (no sin) or indecency (sin). We're patiently waiting, Greg.

Greg here with greetings to the list:

I see that my name came up in about a dozen posts this past weekend. Seems like Don Martin and Edward want me to answer some questions. So I will answer them.

I am sure that many on the list have read my comments already and understand what I am saying. Some only read what they want and then try to assign motives to me that totally miss the mark. So whether I am the bad guy or a logical guy, or one that has the ability to express his thoughts in a coherent manner, or one that speaks common sense, and in my opinion closer to the scripture than the others, is left to the judgment of all on the list.

Call me what you want. Tell the world that I am teaching situation ethics, and that is fine with me, but you better qualify what you mean by situation ethics. I believe we display our ethics in many diverse situations, and in a sense of the phrase, Christians do it every day. With every situation that is presented to us we have two choices- Do right or do wrong. No other choice is available, so we practice situation ethics everyday. Now Don and Edward are charging that these people are doing sinful things. I am not convinced that they are doing sinful things. It WOULD be sin for us, but not necessarily for them.

One culture dresses a particular way, they see nothing wrong with the way they dress. But we have a problem with the way they dress. WHY? Because we would not dress that way. I am not advocating that WE dress that way because that way would be sin for US.

Considering the National Geographic and Learning Channels: When there are programs about these folks, we see there is no shame on their part because of their nakedness (or at least what we consider would be nakedness from our perspective). Did you ever notice that these people do not run for cover when the cameras are on? Why? They do not know what nakedness is and they do not possess a sense of shame because of their lack of clothing.

Jerry and some others have confirmed that some cultures have no problem with certain behaviors or dress, even though we would. I suggest that if exposed breasts in another culture are a problem for us, we need to close our eyes and recognize ourselves as being carnally minded. But we should not judge others as being carnally minded when they are not carnally minded.

I have repeated through this thread that what is modest for one culture may not be modest for another. And what we consider as immodest, others do not. That is reality. Just because we consider certain attire a sin, does not make it so for the other culture. For some look to our culture and consider us immodest in dress AND behavior.

God's instructions in 1 Tim 2:9 are more about the sobriety and propriety of a woman adorning herself with godliness than about the style or clothing on her body.

Edward asked about the New Guinea natives that wear a penile sheath: Would I wear a penile sheath? Absolutely not. The reason is because in my society and my cultural upbringing it is not done. It is wrong. It is sinful. For me and anyone else from my society. It would most likely be wrong for someone in another culture as well. BUT NOT FOR THAT CULTURE. That culture knows what immodesty is and when it is displayed they would see such behavior. That behavior would be sinful. There is only one culture in the world of which I am aware where the magnitude of clothing for a group of people is the penile sheath. Different cultures add more clothing to their modesty as their society advances. Then again, some go overboard.

If I had opportunity to teach them would I teach them about nakedness? Yes I would, because the Bible addresses such. What would I tell them? That many cultures consider them immodest. Whether the consideration of other cultures would cause them to clothe themselves should be left up to them. But I think more importantly, if I had the opportunity to teach them, I would preach about Christ and the need for all to seek Him. The rest should take care of itself in time.

Five years ago, Don Martin taught this list that anyone that did not wear a suit and tie to worship services was in sin. I took issue with that statement for several reasons. Did the brethren of the first century wear a suit and tie? No. Did the brethren where I attended wear suits and ties? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

To condemn ANYONE because of their dress (although appropriate within their culture) is transgressing God's law, and a violation of Romans 14.

Don Martin to the list (post one of two):

I appreciate the fact that Greg has now responded (Perhaps Ray will respond soon to Edward's questions).

Greg wrote:

I am sure that many on the list have read my comments already and understand what I am saying. Some only read what they want and then try to assign motives to me that totally miss the mark.

Don comments:

I have not seen a single post that has misrepresented Greg. Greg has consistently contended that a woman in the Philippines may appear exposed from the waist up in public worship and not be in violation of I Timothy 2: 9. His rational has been that since that culture says it is o.k., it is decent. I have not seen an instance of a motive assigned to Greg. I, frankly, do not know why Greg believes that culture can make a morally indecent matter decent. I have in the past and I presently continue to accuse Greg of teaching classic situation ethics.

Greg urged:

Tell the world that I am teaching situation ethics, and that is fine with me, but you better qualify what you mean by situation ethics.

Don responds:

I have many times explained what is meant by Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics. It is the teaching that a matter wrong within itself can be right if that particular culture approves of it. Again, my differences with Greg do not involve morally indifferent fashion.

Greg has now walked up to the plate and commented on the questions asked by Edward. Let us examine his answers and the stated reasons behind his answers.

Edward asked about the New Guinea natives that wear a penile sheath: Would I wear a penile sheath? Absolutely not.

Don comments:

I never really thought Greg would engage in such attire. Now, let us see why he would not. I mentioned that I would not because it is immoral and a sin. Matters wrong within themselves are not static. Hence, they are wrong in any culture, at any time, and regarding all such considered circumstances.

Hear why Greg would not dress in such a fashion:

The reason is because in my society and my cultural upbringing it is not done. It is wrong. It is sinful. For me and anyone else from my society. It would most likely be wrong for someone in another culture as well.

Greg is being very precise in his answer and why he is thus replying (this is good). For Greg or one of another culture appearing in public with only the mentioned attire would be wrong, says he. However, how about those within that same culture. Herein lies the focus.

Again, hear Greg:

BUT NOT FOR THAT CULTURE. That culture knows what immodesty is and when it is displayed they would see such behavior. That behavior would be sinful. There is only one culture in the world of which I am aware where the magnitude of clothing for a group of people is the penile sheath. Different cultures add more clothing to their modesty as their society advances. Then again, some go overboard.

Don reflects:

Has Greg been misrepresented? No. He has made his position very clear and this is precisely the position that I and others have assigned to him.

Please see post two.

Don Martin to the list (post two of two):

Greg has been forthright in stating his position and in answering Edward's good questions. His position is exactly what I have said for five years that it is. Greg would not himself publicly appear as one does in New Guinea. However, he does not believe such public exposure is wrong or against I Timothy 2: 9 as far as people IN THAT CULTURE so appearing are concerned. Herein, I have charged Greg with situation ethics. Again, hear Greg as he explains why he or one from a different culture than New Guinea can not wear such attire but how it is not wrong for those in that culture:

The reason is because in my society and my cultural upbringing it is not done. It is wrong. It is sinful. For me and anyone else from my society. It would most likely be wrong for someone in another culture as well....BUT NOT FOR THAT CULTURE.

Don continues:

Now that Greg has made it very plain that those thus dressed in the culture of New Guinea are not indecent, just what would Greg do were he there and had teaching opportunities. This is one area on which I focused five years ago (the fact that some who had been supported by American churches were not teaching morals in foreign fields, whose culture had no problem with the prevailing immoral, according to the Bible, practices).

Hear Greg:

If I had opportunity to teach them would I teach them about nakedness? Yes I would....

Don reflects:

Sounds good, doesn't it? I give Greg more credit than some preachers who have been in such places but who have refused to teach them. Why would Greg teach them?

Hear Greg:

...because the Bible addresses such.

Don comments:

Again, sounds good. However, I am becoming a little confused at this point. According to Greg, the lack of attire that exposes about 98 percent of their bodies is not a sin for them or in violation with I Timothy 2: 9 because their culture says such public exposure is decent.

Hear Greg as to what he would tell them:

What would I tell them? That many cultures consider them immodest. Whether the consideration of other cultures would cause them to clothe themselves should be left up to them.

Don responds:

At least, Greg is consistent! Would I teach them? I certainly would. What would I tell them? I would tell them that God expects and demands that they practice decency and cover the parts of their body that the Bible calls "nakedness" (cp. Ex. 28: 42).

I have attempted to very accurately quote Greg for five years. Greg has misquoted me on several occasions and he recently publicly admitted to one instance and retracted his inaccurate statements about what I said (I appreciate this).

Greg again misquotes me in another matter:

Five years ago, Don Martin taught this list that anyone that did not wear a suit and tie to worship services was in sin.

Don responds:

One way of attempting to gain grace and save face is by making your opponent appear extreme. I have carefully quoted Greg as saying that a woman exposed from the waist up in the Philippines attending public worship.... Greg quotes me as saying, "Don Martin taught this list that anyone that did not wear a suit and tie to worship services was in sin."

I have never taught such! I have taught that Christians should wear clothing that is appropriate for public worship, clothing that is reflective of reverence and respect for the occasion (Heb. 12: 28). I have also said that in many places in America this involves what we call dress clothing as opposed to casual wear. I have also mentioned the importance of men who publicly serve conforming to such standards. I have conceded that what is appropriate (not talking about moral decency) is largely determined by the prevailing culture, fashion, and norms established by that culture. Places where I have lived, a suit or sport coat and tie is considered dress wear for men.

Greg is like so many who assiduously yell "misrepresentation" when they are being carefully quoted and then they turn around and recklessly misrepresent the ones whom they accuse of misrepresenting them. Seems like I recall something about this in my first Psychology 101 course.

To Greg's credit, he did finally add:

I think that Don has modified his teaching somewhat because he does now recognize that some cultures do not expect suits and ties to be worn. I hope that I am not misrepresenting Don.

Don concludes:

I have always qualified my teaching. There are parts of the world that do not even have a place for the suit and tie with which we are familiar in their dress attire.

Greg has now answered Edward's good questions, where is Ray's answer?

Edward to Don Martin, Greg, and the list:

I am pleased that Greg has chosen to respond but am deeply disappointed that he has chosen the position that he has. Thanks to Don Martin's persistence, we now see the position that Greg holds. I believe firmly that he is wrong. His weakness is displayed by his comments:

"The few articles I read about this culture (and similar ones) indicates that they have a solid community protocol and morality, and sexuality is never a problem with them."

It is plain to see that if one takes Greg's approach to what determines immodesty or indecency, that culture determines sin, and not God, that any sin, including polygamy, adultery, fornication murder, etc. can be justified by culture.

No, my friend, you are dead wrong. It is God who determines what is or is not sin; not culture. God is sovereign. He is the creator and the lawgiver. It is He who determines sin; not man nor his culture. To believe otherwise is to depart from the truth of God's Word.

Greg answers:

The reason is because in my society and my cultural upbringing it is not done. It is wrong. It is sinful. For me and anyone else from my society. It would most likely be wrong for someone in another culture as well. BUT NOT FOR THAT CULTURE."

Wrong reason, Greg! Nakedness is sin because God has condemned it; not because some culture has determined it so. We aren't talking about whether or not a certain style of dress is inappropriate within the custom of that society but what constitutes immodesty or indecency by God's standard.

Greetings to the list from Greg:

I and others are still waiting for Edward to tell us what is decent and modest by God's standards. I believe that the reason Edward will not tell us is because he (and Don Martin) are trying to apply specifics to a general principle, and it is presumptuous on their parts to do so. Neither can they find any consistency when put into application. When is a person considered naked and when is a person modest? WHERE IS THE LINE? WHERE IS THE STANDARD? Tell us guys, for others have inquired as well.

Don Martin started this when he taught a woman that wearing shorts to worship is sinful. However in the original correspondence, the length of the shorts was never mentioned. So according to Don, it was the style, and not the length that he was opposed to. I agree that short shorts would be immodest. I have stated that some knee length shorts are very modest and decent to cover sufficiently a woman's nakedness. Do you agree or not? (Don finally agreed that there is no difference in the amount of flesh shown whether by shorts or a dress--as long as the person was modest in behavior.

Five years ago, Don Martin called my brethren that I worshipped with sinners because they did not wear suits and ties. I told Don then (as I repeated recently) that he could not determine the heart of brethren he never even met. In the course of that discussion back then, I questioned whether Don considered our brethren down in South America and other less developed countries as being in sin because they did not wear a suit and tie like we wear. Don's teaching then was that they were sinful people because they did not wear suits and ties. Edward, do you agree with Don that brethren that do not wear suits and ties are sinners? I hope not, because you have admitted that you do not wear a suit and tie. I don't have a problem with the way you dress (as you described it) because I know you are as modest and decent as you can be in your circumstances.

So culture entered this discussion. Now, you guys find the lowest form of cultural society and try to see if I will stand up for the cultural dress as being appropriate. You are trying to see if I will be consistent or selective in my approach to this subject. So that presents the problems in our discussion.

If I agree that nakedness is sinful, then you have pointed out that my position is flawed. I will agree that going to those extremes as you brought up certainly challenges my position as I stated it. But, notice the quote of Edward:

Edward wrote:

We aren't talking about whether or not a certain style of dress is inappropriate within the custom of that society but what constitutes immodesty or indecency by God's standard.

Greg here: That is the point that I have been trying to promote. If brethren where you worship have no problem with NOT wearing suits and ties, what gives Don Martin the right to call them sinners

I doubt that I will continue in this discussion until Edward and Don give us God's standards for decency. And God's standard has to apply to everyone for all time. So we will see that which was worn in the first century was modest, but if we were to wear the exact same clothing today, we would be immodest? It does not make sense if God approved of their dress then, but not today. That is inconsistent.

Don Martin to the list (post one of two):

In some of my initial posts under the theme of "Culture and attire," I presented a brief exposition of the key words in I Timothy 2: 9. Based on an observation and definition of such key words as "modest," "apparel," "shamefacedness," and "sobriety," we saw that the clothing is to be appropriate for the occasion (modest) and it is to be that which covers (apparel, shamefacedness), attire that is selected due to godly consideration and not just fashion or culture (sobriety). I believe that it is evident that some have not made a serious word study of I Timothy 2: 9 and have not, therefore, understood that both appropriate for the occasion and decent attire is being set forth. In this and the following post, I want to share with you again what I believe to be a sound and viable exegesis of I Timothy 2: 9 (viewed in its text). I shall insert comments from expositor B. W. Johnson and Albert Barnes. First, consider the wording of I Timothy 2: 9:

"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; 10: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Commentator B. W. Johnson provides us a succinct insight as to the milieu of our verse:

"9, 10. In like manner, that women also. When they come to the public worship, let them not spend their thoughts in adorning their bodies, but adorn themselves in modest apparel. In simple attire which does not attract attention. With shamefacedness. A shrinking from all that is indelicate. Sobriety. Self-restraint; not yielding to vain impulses. Not with braided hair. The Gentile women were much given to arranging the hair in plaits over the head, with bands of gold. Such vain and idle show at worship is forbidden, as well as the wearing of pearls, or costly array. At the house of God a display is not comely. Compare 1 Peter 3:3. 10. But. There is another adorning which better becomes godly women. Let their lives be adorned by kindly, helpful deeds" (The People's Commentary).

Albert Barnes helps introduce the setting:

Verse 8. "...The direction here given that men should pray in contradistinction from the, duties of women, specified in the next verse, may be intended to imply that men should conduct the exercises of public worship. The duties of women pertain to a different sphere. Comp. 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12. (I believe this is why aner, men only, is used instead of the generic anthropos, dm.)

Lifting up holy hands. To lift up the hands denotes supplication, as it was a common attitude of prayer to spread abroad the hands towards heaven....

Verse 9. In like manner also. That is, with the same propriety; with the same regard to what religion demands. The apostle had stated particularly the duty of men in public worship, 1 Timothy 2:8, and he now proceeds to state the duty of women. All the directions here evidently refer to the proper manner of conducting public worship, and not to private duties; and the object here is to state the way in which he would have the different sexes appear. He had said that he would have prayers offered for all men, 1 Thessalonians 2:1, seq., and that in offering such petitions he would have the men on whom devolved the duty of conducting public devotion, do it with holy hands, and without any intermingling of passion, and with entire freedom from the spirit of contention. In reference to the duty of females in attendance on public worship, he says that he would have them appear in apparel suitable to the place and the occasion; adorned not after the manner of the world, but with the zeal and love in the cause of the Redeemer which became Christians. He would not have a woman become a public teacher, 1 Timothy 2:12, but would wish her ever to occupy the place in society for which she was designed, 1 Timothy 2:11, and to which she had shown that she was adapted, 1 Timothy 2:13,14. The direction in 1 Timothy 2:9-12, therefore, is to be understood particularly of the proper deportment of females in the duties of public worship. At the same time, the principles laid down are doubtless such as were intended to apply to them in the other situations in life, for if modest apparel is appropriate in the sanctuary, it is appropriate everywhere. If what is here prohibited in dress is wrong there, it would be difficult to show that it is right elsewhere."

Don Martin with post two of two (Barnes quotation continued):

That women adorn themselves. The words "I will," are to be understood here as repeated from 1 Timothy 2:8. The apostle, by the use of the word adorn, (kosmein) shows that he is not opposed to ornament or adorning, provided it be of the right kind....

In modest apparel. The word here rendered modest (kosmiov) properly relates to ornament or decoration, and means that which is well-ordered, decorous, becoming. It does not, properly, mean modest, in the sense of being opposed to that which is immodest, or which tends to excite improper passions and desires, but that which is becoming or appropriate. The apostle does not positively specify what this would be, but he mentions some things which are to be excluded from it, and which, in his view, are inconsistent with the true adorning of Christian females --" broidered hair, gold, pearls, costly array." The sense here is, that the apparel of females should be such as becomes them, or is appropriate to them. The word here used, (kosmiov) shows that there should be due attention that it may be truly neat, fit, decorous. There is no religion in a negligent mode of apparel, or in inattention to personal appearance- any more than there is in wearing gold and pearls; and a female may as truly violate the precepts of her religion by neglecting her personal appearance, as by excessive attention to it....

With shame-facedness. With modesty of appearance and manner--an eminent female virtue, whether in the sanctuary or at home.

And sobriety. The word here used means properly, sanity; then sober-mindedness, moderation of the desires and passions. It is opposed to all that is frivolous, and to all undue excitement of the passions. The idea is, that in their apparel and deportment they should not entrench on the strictest decorum....

Not with broidered hair. Marg., plaited. Females in the east pay much more attention to the hair than is commonly done with us. It is plaited with great care, and arranged in various forms, according to the prevailing fashion, and often ornamented with spangles, or with silver wire, or tissue interwoven.... The sense here is, that Christian females are not to imitate those of the world in their careful attention to the ornaments of the head. It cannot be supposed that the mere braiding of the hair is forbidden, but only that careful attention to the manner of doing it, and to the ornaments usually worn in it, which characterized worldly females.

Or gold, or pearls. It is not to be supposed that all use of gold or pearls, as articles of dress, is here forbidden; but the idea is, that the Christian female is not to seek these as the adorning which she desires, or is not to imitate the world in these personal decorations. It may be a difficult question to settle how much ornament is allowable, and when the true line is passed. But though this cannot be settled by any exact rules, since much must depend on age, and on the relative rank in life, and the means which one may possess, yet there is one general rule which is applicable to all, and which might regulate all. It is, that the true line is passed when more is thought of this external adorning, than of the ornament of the heart...." (Barnes on the New Testament.)

I submit the above from Johnson and Barnes because I believe that they by very responsibly exegeses have presented the truth pertaining to I Timothy 2: 9. Now, let us teach and practice this truth. Fashion statement does vary from culture to culture and the Christian should select attire that makes the right statement. Clothing worn in public worship should make the statement of reverence and respect for the occasion. It should reflect the fact that the occasion is viewed as important and of great seriousness. Women are to be passive in the assembly (not leaders), but if not controlled, their dress can distract. Hence, their attire is to
be both appropriate and decent.

As seen in the case of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3: 21) and the fact that "thighs" is used in association with Nakedness (Ex. 28: 42), it is apparent that God wants the human body covered. I good rule of thumb would be from the knees to the upper chest or chest. Yet, Greg has advocated a woman in public worship exposed from the waist up and a New Guinea native wearing only a penile sheath. How can this be? Greg and others have been misled by such teaching as presented by Joseph Fletcher in the 60s, the teaching that if a given culture does not condemn that which is innately morally wrong, then the matter is not sin within that culture.

Don Martin to the list:

The "Culture and attire" exchange has revealed a divergence of attitudes and positioning pertaining to decency of dress and appropriate for the occasion clothing.

Greg insisted:

Neither can they find any consistency when put into application. When is a person considered naked and when is a person modest? WHERE IS THE LINE? WHERE IS THE STANDARD? Tell us guys, for others have inquired as well.

Don responds:

Greg apparently thus wrote in view of the test being applied to him regarding his situation ethics position. Greg has advocated a woman in public worship exposed from the waist up and a New Guinea native wearing only a penile sheath are both appropriately and decently attired in view of the culture in which they live and are thus in harmony with I Timothy 2: 9. However, Greg is now experiencing the heat of his position.

Greg wrote:

If I agree that nakedness is sinful, then you have pointed out that my position is flawed. I will agree that going to those extremes as you brought up certainly challenges my position as I stated it.

Don comments:

Greg asked: "When is a person considered naked and when is a person modest? WHERE IS THE LINE? WHERE IS THE STANDARD?"

Don answers:

Anterior to sin, Adam and Eve were both naked (totally without attire, Gen. 2: 25). In this state, there was no shame. When they sinned and lost their innocence, they made themselves "aprons" (Gen. 3: 7). Subsequent to this, God clothed Adam and Eve with "coats of skins" (Gen. 3: 21). These "coats of skin" covered areas of the body that men have generally conceived as being covered for the sake of decency. "Coats" or cathnoth is derived from cathan, to cover. The attire made by God for Adam and Eve appears to have covered their bodies from around their upper chest down to about the knees. Some have suggested that the only reason God so designed this new clothing was to offer more protection for them compared to the "aprons." The animal skin material surely offered added protection for their new harsh environment outside of the paradise of God, but it is evident that the added coverage was also just that, to hide their nakedness (Gen. 2: 25, 3: 7, 7-21). The Pulpit Commentary lists a number of reasons and points relative to the God designed clothing. First, the matter of protection and then the second offered reason was decency or "...to cover their nakedness." I believe the area generally concealed by these "coats" would fall under the heading of what the Bible calls "nakedness." Such an area of the body would also, then, be involved in the language of I Timothy 2: 9.

Regarding Adam and Eve, Commentator Matthew Henry remarks:

This teaches us modesty and decency of garb and gesture at all times, especially in public worship....It also intimates what need our souls have of a covering, when we come before God, that the shame of their nakedness may not appear (Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible).

Greg defends his situation ethics doctrine:

I doubt that I will continue in this discussion until Edward and Don give us God's standards for decency. And God's standard has to apply to everyone for all time. So we will see that which was worn in the first century was modest, but if we were to wear the exact same clothing today, we would be immodest? It does not make sense if God approved of their dress then, but not today. That is inconsistent.

Don answers:

Based on the scriptures, I conclude that the upper chest down to about the knees of the human torso is to be covered, for all time, cultures, and peoples. The style or fashion of such coverage may vary. However, even different fashion should be considered for different occasions.

There are a number of Hebrew and Greek words translated "nakedness." For instance, ur, arah, drom, and erwah are the main Hebrew words. In the Greek New Testament, the noun gumnotes and the adjective gumnos are found. "Nakedness" is meant to be covered (cp. Lev. 18: 6). "Nakedness" is associated with shame and degradation (Rev. 3: 17, 16: 15). Sometimes, these words are used to describe a condition totally devoid of any attire (Job 1: 21). Sometimes, just the absence of certain garments was considered "nakedness." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia suggest that in such verses as John 21: 7, "nakedness" is used in the sense of "lightly clad" or "without an outer garment.") Hence, the context must determine which state is meant. In the case of the attire of the priest, "nakedness" is used for the area "...from the loins even unto the thighs...." (Ex. 28: 42). Based on the Hebrew language, "...even unto the thighs" identifies the area connected with the kneecap. Anticipatory of the argument, Exodus 28: 42 does not authorize an inference that from the loins up is not "nakedness." In the case of Exodus 28: 42, the area including from the loins to the thigh is the only area under consideration.

Appropriate dress for the occasion and decency of attire are both taught in such verses as I Timothy 2: 9. To appear in public without any clothing or partial clothing exposing, for instance, the area between the lion and associated with the knee is considered "nakedness" and is always used in a condemned way. Fashion or style changes; however, decency and adequate coverage remain the same for all cultures. Greg and situation ethics, however, do not agree.

While there are some technical matters and questions, I believe the foregoing regarding the kind of attire God wants is both tenable and irrefutable. Greg has advocated a woman in public worship exposed from the waist up and a New Guinea native wearing only a penile sheath are both appropriately and decently attired in view of the culture in which they live and are thus in harmony with I Timothy 2: 9. I think not!

The impetus for this whole discussion was a question submitted to Bible Questions inquiring about whether or not wearing shorts to public worship was acceptable. I answered in the negative and mentioned that my answer pertained to typical shorts. I stand by this answer.

Don Martin to the list:

Remember that Greg has openly taught that the disgusting lack of attire in the New Guinea culture is not a sin, based on that culture's approval of such public exposure. Greg has said that such public exposure in America would be a sin. Hence, Greg has presented a classic case of situation ethics, Joseph Fletcher's teaching that a matter wrong within itself and is so viewed in one culture or circumstance may not be wrong in another culture or circumstance.

Greg wrote:

I and others are still waiting for Edward to tell us what is decent and modest by God's standards. I believe that the reason Edward will not tell us is because he (and Don Martin) are trying to apply specifics to a general principle, and it is presumptuous on their parts to do so. Neither can they find any consistency when put into application. When is a person considered naked and when is a person modest?

Don comments:

Edward does not need any help from me, but I seem to recall that he has provided answers to Greg's question as to when a person is biblically considered naked. Exodus 28: 42 associates the "thigh" with "nakedness." I have made this point repeatedly.

Greg continues:

WHERE IS THE LINE? WHERE IS THE STANDARD? Tell us guys, for others have inquired as well. Don't just say the Bible says so, please give BCV for we can read the Bible as well as you.

Don comments:

It appears that Greg is not listening (reading).

Greg continues:

Don Martin started this when he taught a woman that wearing shorts to worship is sinful. However in the original correspondence, the length of the shorts was never mentioned. So according to Don, it was the style, and not the length that he was opposed to. I agree that short shorts would be immodest. I have stated that some knee length shorts are very modest and decent to cover sufficiently a woman's nakedness. Do you agree or not? (Don finally agreed that there is no difference in the amount of flesh shown whether by shorts or a dress--as long as the person was modest in behavior.

Don replies:

I am guilty, I did start this latest round regarding I Timothy 2: 9, appropriate and decent attire in the assembly. However, I did refer to the shorts as "typical" and on one early occasion, I specified "short shorts."

Greg states:

Five years ago, Don Martin called my brethren that I worshipped with sinners because they did not wear suits and ties. I told Don then (as I repeated recently) that he could not determine the heart of brethren he never even met. In the course of that discussion back then, I questioned whether Don considered our brethren down in South America and other less developed countries as being in sin because they did not wear a suit and tie like we wear. Don's teaching then was that they were sinful people because they did not wear suits and ties.

Don answers:

Again, I have a hard time saying that Greg is inadvertently misrepresenting me. I say this because just as recently as today I have denied saying what Greg says that I have said. I have, in fact, many times mentioned that dress codes (as far as fashion...) vary from culture to culture. The point that I have made regarding appropriate attire in the assembly is that clothing should be what that culture recognizes as proper for the occasion, an occasion of public worship in which the Christian should desire to make a statement by his dress as to the importance, reverence, and respect he associates with the privilege of assembling in the presence of the mighty God of heaven. Again, though, attire that does not cover parts of the body that God wants covered is not proper in any culture.

Greg attempts to classify and alienate:

Edward, do you agree with Don that brethren that do not wear suits and ties are sinners? I hope not, because you have admitted that you do not wear a suit and tie. I don't have a problem with the way you dress (as you described it) because I know you are as modest and decent as you can be in your circumstances.

Don comments:

Greg, Greg, Gred, why do you not listen? You have in the past and continue in the present to accuse me of misrepresenting you, but you recklessly charge me over and over with things that I have never taught! You must really think that I am dumb (you do not have to answer). The very idea of anyone teaching that unless a suit and tie is worn, the worshipper is in sin. Such is the apex of ridiculous when taught without qualification in view of the suit and tie not even being acknowledged or worn in various parts of the world.

Greg puzzles me:

After repeatedly stating what I believe and teach (present tense), Greg then says:

Thankfully Don has modified from his original teachings and will admit that different cultures determine what is appropriate as long as God's standards are met.

Greg closes:

I doubt that I will continue in this discussion until Edward and Don give us God's standards for decency. And God's standard has to apply to everyone for all time. So we will see that which was worn in the first century was modest, but if we were to wear the exact same clothing today, we would be immodest?

Don answers:

Again, the principle residing in Exodus 28: 42 is a guideline. If not, why not? Edward's woman exposed from the waist up in the Philippines is an example of indecent exposure and is in violation with I Timothy 2: 9. The male in New Guinea with only about three percent of his body covered, the one whom Greg said is in keeping with I Timothy 2: 9 is an example of indecency. Beginning with Adam and Eve, we have seen consistently that God demands attire that covers the parts He wants covered. Culture does not make indecent clothing decent. According to Greg, the New Guinea man with only the small percentage of cover may worship in the public assembly in New Guinea (this was the original thrust) and the exposed from the waist up woman may come together with the saints in the Philippines both in keeping with I Timothy 2: 9. I am appalled, but this is the true teaching of situation ethics.

Don Martin to the list:

It appears Greg is not going to answer my question today (perhaps tomorrow). In the interim, I though I would comment on another post.

Eugene Wallace wrote:

Did Jesus expose His nakedness in Rev. 19:16?

Was the entire length of Isaiah's thighs covered before he exposed his nakedness in Isaiah 20 or was it his loins that were covered? Would merely the exposure of a part of the thigh have brought the shame of nakedness in the city of Ashdod?

We'll see how straight an answer you can give, Don.

Don comments:

I believe we have established a number of biblical facts:

There are a number of Hebrew and Greek words translated "nakedness." For instance, ur, arah, drom, and erwah are the main Hebrew words. In the Greek New Testament, the noun gumnotes and the adjective gumnos are found. "Nakedness" is meant to be covered (cp. Lev. 18: 6). "Nakedness" is associated with shame and degradation (Rev. 3: 17, 16: 15). Sometimes, these words are used to describe a condition totally devoid of any attire (Job 1: 21). Sometimes, just the absence of certain garments was considered "nakedness." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia suggest that in such verses as John 21: 7, "nakedness" is used in the sense of "lightly clad" or "without an outer garment.") Hence, the context must determine which state is meant. In the case of the attire of the priest, "nakedness" is used for the area "...from the loins even unto the thighs...." (Ex. 28: 42). Based on the Hebrew language, "...even unto the thighs" identifies the area connected with the kneecap. Anticipatory of the argument, Exodus 28: 42 does not authorize an inference that from the loins up is not "nakedness." In the case of Exodus 28: 42, the area including from the loins to the thigh is the only area under consideration.

Greg has presented the situation of a male in New Guinea running around with nothing more than a penile sheath that is usually tied to a string about the waist and an exposed woman from the waist up attending public worship in the Philippines, all being in harmony with I Timothy 2: 9. Greg has thus taught contending that since the culture of these countries (according to Greg) pronounces such attire as acceptable, it is not sinful.

Now, Eugene appears to be striving to justify matters that are shameful. In the case of Revelation 19: 16, we must be aware that John is being presented a "vision" (19: 11ff.) The text is replete with figurative language. For instance, a sword proceeding out of the mouth and birds eating human flesh (vs. 15; 17, 18). Jesus is figuratively presented as a great warrior and leader, having on a royal robe of battle (vs. 11-16). The language, "King of kings, and Lord of lords" is conspicuously written on the robe and when it is open as he rides the white horse in battle, the same words are written on his "thigh." Does Eugene think Revelation 19: 16 was written to encourage the reader to take off his clothes and expose his thigh? I really think it is a desperate reach to see any authorization in Revelation 19: 16 to justify exposing the thigh in public. I wonder if Eugene agrees with Greg regarding the New Guinea male with only a penile sheath and an exposed from the waist up woman in the Philippines in the public assembly worshipping God.

Regarding the matter of Isaiah, yes, the prophet is being used by his attire to symbolize the shame that was to characterize the Egyptians and Cushites (Isa. 20). Isaiah was told, "...Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe...and he did so, walking naked and barefoot." As we have noticed, "naked" is sometimes used not for a condition totally devoid of clothing, but for the lack of certain outward attire.

Expositor Peter Lange wrote regarding Isaiah:

"Anciently, indeed, one was regarded as naked who took off the upper garment....(Vol. 6, pg. 232).

Keil and Delitzsch wrote:

"What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic...." (Vol. 7, pg. 372).

Tunics ranged in size regarding different peoples. As seen in the case of Adam and Eve, many scholars describe the attire as reaching from about the upper chest or lower throat to the knees or even below. I suppose a rough comparison would be long john underwear. Keep in mind, that even though Isaiah was not free of cover, still his condition symbolized shame (Isa. 20: 4). Also keep in mind that God had to make Isaiah appear without his outward garment that normally fit on top of the under garment around the loins.

I think we see in Eugene's post a graphic case of one attempting to advance immoral dress. It would seem to be that a Christian would be doing the converse: advocating and demonstrating the kind of attire set forth as decent in the Bible, clothing that covers the body.

Footnote: I think it is sad that Greg never did respond or answer the last questions presented to him. However, false doctrine will not stand up against the truth. When men are dishonest, they tend to simply want to vanish rather than attempt to deal with the logical and dialectic consequences of their position.