Questions With No Answers

Ever get to the place where your questions have questions?  Yeah.  I’m there.  Haha…only thing I can do is laugh because I hate to cry. 

Seriously though, when all you get for your research is more questions, it gets very discouraging.  It would be so much easier to just crawl back in the box I came out of and accept everything I’m told and live by the rules that make no sense…ignorance is bliss. 

And then I just can’t make myself do it.  I mean, I still live by the rules in a sense, because I still go to a place where that’s just what you have to do, and out of respect for them (because, I really do love and respect them), while I’m there, I do follow most of the rules.  But I just can’t quite make myself agree with them.  And it’s really hard to come to grips with that. 

I’m trying, but…wow is it ever tough. 

So You Washed My Feet…

but what did you do with my Holy Kiss?

Footwashing & Communion are New Testament ordinances we have to follow but greeting one another with a holy kiss is not.

I’m not sure what to do with this one. I personally think that Jesus was simply wanting his disciples to remember his sacrifice and to humbly serve each other. Washing feet was a common biblical practice—they didn’t have cars and they walked everywhere—and it was something the servants did for you.

In today’s world, servitude and humility in serving can take on different practices. Today, I would be more embarrassed to have Jesus scrub my toilet than for Him to wash my feet. And to me, washing someone’s feet in the footwashing service isn’t as big a deal as going over to their house and helping them clean, or scrubbing the toilets at the church building, or allowing someone to come help do my dirty laundry. To me, it’s more of a sacrifice of love and humility to perform or receive THOSE serving tasks than to wash someone’s feet.

However, Jesus DID say “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” (John 13:14) So again, it’s one of those things that I wonder if we’re supposed to take it literally or just simply in theory.

This goes with communion as well, He said “this do in remembrance of me” but was He literally saying that we have to eat unleavened bread and drink grape juice a couple of times a year? If so, then why don’t we observe the rest of the Passover then since that is what they were originally gathering for? Or was He meaning that when you eat, to remember His sacrifice for us and thank Him for our food? I’m just not sure I quite get it.

Especially since, IF we’re supposed to take the NT ordinances literally, then that totally kills the whole "handshake greeting" for your brother’s and sisters in Christ. 2 Corinthians 13:12 is pretty plain on that one: Greet one another with an holy kiss. And you’ll notice the writer didn’t say only brothers to brothers and sisters to sisters. ONE ANOTHER, PEOPLE! And those church folks are all about no HUGGING opposite genders!! Actually, we’re supposed to be KISSING them. ;o)

Hmmmm.

Respect or Hypocrisy?

I was reading some of those thoughts that I referred to in my last post but didn’t want to link to because of the underlying attitude.  One of them was a topic along the lines of “Hypocriting” and I’ll paraphrase, but the basic thought was: If you are part of a group that has certain rules by which its members are expected to live by, you shouldn’t break the rules when you’re away from the group because that’s lying.  By living by the rules when you’re with the group and living by a different set of rules when you’re away from them, that’s living a double standard.  And if you don’t live/believe the rules, condemning others who don’t live by those rules is hypocritical.

To a certain extent, I think the statements above, summarizing the topic, have a certain amount of truth in them, particularly the last one.  I think if you’re verbally telling people that you believe the rules are what gets you into heaven, then turning around and breaking those rules and still claiming that you’re going to get into heaven, and at the same time condemning people who aren’t living those rules, then in essence, you ARE holding a double standard. 

HOWEVER, attending a church does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything that takes place or is taught. 

I can go to the store for milk.  The store also sells spam, that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy it.  Just because I shop at the store does not mean I’m putting my approval on everything they sell, even if every time I go in, they’re promoting spam.  But let’s say they make it a requirement for membership that you buy a can of spam every time you shop.  Just because I go to the store to get milk and come home with the milk and the required can of spam does not mean I’m going to eat it when I get home.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  Well, I could just shop at a different store, but that particular store has a certain variety that I haven’t been able to find somewhere else.  So you live with the differences, respect the store manager, and disagree in private.  Maybe not the perfect solution, but it’s workable until you run out of cabinet space for Spam.  Haha.

Maybe that’s a strange example but I think it gets the point across. 

Can I say I haven’t been looking for another place to shop?  Well…no, I can’t say that, but as long as I’m shopping there, while I’m there, I’ll follow the crazy rules.  :o)

The definition of respect: deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

The definition of Hypocrisy: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

I think the difference is that we do not judge or condemn or even amen the “crazy rules” that we do not believe.  We don’t hide, but neither do we flaunt our disagreements.  Out of respect for others convictions, we do what we do.  Now the time may come when we are no longer shopping at that store, and at that time, if others convictions are no longer hindering us, we may live publicly a little differently, but that time is not here yet. 

I base this reasoning on Romans 14.  The entire chapter is good, but specifically these verses:

¹⁹Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
²⁰For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
²¹It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
²²Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
²³And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

In this commentary by John Darby on the 14th chapter, he says:

Many important principles are brought forward in these exhortations. Every one shall give account of himself to God. Everyone, in these cases, should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and should not judge another. If any one has faith that delivers him from traditional observances, and he sees them to be absolutely nothing-as indeed they are-let him have his faith for God, and not cause his brother to stumble.

I think that sums it up nicely. 

Who Wears The Pants?

This was an intense study…there’s a lot of controversy on this particular scripture and I even found some of my exact thoughts on a lot of these “crazy rules” have already been written down.  I gave serious consideration to just linking up, but wanted to collect my own thoughts as well as sum it up in simpler terms (since some of the articles are quite wordy and a little over my head at times.  I’m just a simple lady.  :o)

Anyway, the crazy rule (although I’m not entirely ruling out women in skirts, only that the logic is flawed):  Women cannot wear pants for any reason because they pertain to men’s clothing, based on Deuteronomy 22:5. 

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

However, this same chapter has another law on clothing: that you shall not wear clothing of mixed materials.  In the time of the Mosaic law, God was promoting purity, and that was one way to get the point across.  In today’s time, we are pure through Jesus.  If this is the case about that law, then that same logic should apply to the law on men and women’s garments. 

God wants there to be a distinction between men and women,  I totally get that.  If a woman puts on a pair of pants for any reason, she’s bound for hell.  I don’t get that.

But that is actually what some people think.  Just ask Joan of Arc!  I stumbled across that in my search today and was shocked.  Granted, today, the consequences aren’t nearly so drastic as death by burning at the stake, but there are consequences to face just the same, even if they are as simple as being thought of as a backslidden sinner.

I thought it quite interesting though, that even back then, twenty-five years after her execution for the crime of heresy (because she wore pants), the retrial reversed the conviction based on rehearing all the testimonies and finding that her intent was pure.  She wore the pants in prison to prevent molestation (she was not in a separate women’s prison) or because her dress was taken away and she had nothing else to wear (perhaps both).  And that verdict of innocence was during a time when women wearing pants wasn’t part of the culture.  

Another point that Zeke told me about and I looked up today, was that in the time when Moses wrote Deut. 22:5, the Israelites were battling transvestism from the Canaanites, thus the law about the putting on of women’s things.  From what I gather, it wasn’t so much the transvestism that was the issue as much as the fact that in that time, part of the idolatry worship involved male prostitutes and cross-dressing the part (basically the intent was evil).  That’s not a direct quote, I’m paraphrasing based on what I understood out of the articles.

This article is very lengthy, but very detailed also.  I would quote several paragraphs but like I said, they are very long, so I’ll summarize.  If you want more details, you can check out the article. 

• The original Hebrew words in the first part of this scripture, seem to be referring to armor or women dressing as warriors. 
• The argument of pants being historically a male symbol doesn’t work when you consider that MANY articles of clothing were invented or became popular for a specific gender.  T-shirts, baseball caps, work boots…all very male items, but we are still feminine and (can be) modest wearing them.  Also, pink and blue are considered gender specific, does this mean females cannot wear blue either?
• As to pants being a distinction of male/female, if you go back to history, the most basic study into biblical clothing shows that there was very little distinction between the articles of clothing worn by men and women.  Going all the way back to Adam and Eve and after they attempted to clothe themselves, God wasn’t satisfied and made new clothes for them.  “Gen 3:21 records that God made “coats of skin” for them to wear. The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth and means “a long shirt-like garment.””  So Moses used the same word to describe both articles of clothing.  That’s distinction of the genders for you. :o)

I also found another site which I won’t link simply because I hear a lot of bitterness in the arguments and while some of it is true and correct, there’s an underlying attitude that comes across, which I’d rather not pull into this.  It seems like they could have some grounds for feeling that way, but nevertheless, I’d like to keep my own thoughts and reasoning attitude free.  ;o)

Finally, (but don’t relax yet because this is a big finally..haha) this article by Grace McMillan is very well written and Biblically solid.  I will probably refer back to it again when I study out some of the other issues.  These are selected portions, if you want to read the whole document, the link is up there.

Why is it considered right for men to wear pants? When did they start wearing pants, and when did it become acceptable? When did pants become defined as “clothing pertaining to a man”? Because the Bible just doesn’t address pants that way. Nope. It really doesn’t. The men and women both wore robes in those days and there was very little difference between the attire of a man and the attire of a woman. That’s just historical fact.

The traditional definition of what some have defined as modesty goes back to what some have taught since the 1880s or other time periods. And in this case their teaching was based on the society of their time. Women didn’t WEAR pants in those days! It most certainly was considered by society to be immodest. That’s historical fact. I can’t argue with it. I’m bound by the same rules of logic that I apply to someone else’s argument. BUT, and here’s where folks are going to differ: we have already established that eternal truth is defined by Christ in the Word of God. It’s not defined by the folks in the 1880s … not in an eternal sense, anyway. We’re no longer studying or defending traditions in that time period; rather, we’re studying scripture and history. See the difference? We are to be rooted and grounded and settled in the truth ~ not custom. Not traditions. Not in a time period.

Both men and women wore robes in Bible times. If there is no biblical injunction against a man wearing pants, then I can’t logically find one for the women either. To say that pants define the legs, well, we have to say that pants define the legs for both genders. To say that wearing pants outlines the body, then my logic says that it would be WORSE for a man to wear them than a woman. The question becomes: when did they start wearing them, and why did it become acceptable?

Men started wearing pants around the end of the Roman empire, what was called the Byzantine era, which was about 400 AD. (After googling this myself, wikipedia seems to think that pants originated in Greece earlier than this, but perhaps the author of this article had more reliable sources…either way, the pants were invented out of convenience, whether for riding in the army or working in the fields) The practice of men wearing pants started with the peasants of that era, which actually makes sense. They were the ones working in the fields, and so it just made sense that instead of “girding up the loins” as you bent over, since you were doing that all day every day, why not just invent a garment that had a split already?  The practice of men wearing pants was first considered lower class and poor because it was done by the peasants, but I declare if that very practical solution didn’t catch on soon with even the upper class, and soon all men started wearing pants even when they weren’t working in the fields. And somehow, over time, the “custom” of robes changed into the “custom” of pants. And we’ve gotten so used to this “custom” of men wearing pants, that we now call it modest. Note that wearing pants started out as a fad, and it was frowned upon and maybe even considered by some as indecent or fashionable. Over the course of time, that definition of modesty has done a complete 180! A completely opposite perception and definition of modesty exists in the society in which we live, in complete contrast to the society of Bible times. And now we define pants for men as modest.

If we are going to define as “worldly” in today’s society for a woman to wear pants, applying the same consistency of logic, scripture, tradition, history and principle, it is just as worldly for a man to wear them. Actually, using the logic of the legalist, it’s probably WORSE for a man, given the body forms of both genders. Further, I have difficulty with the statement that says that if women wear pants, “there’s just no difference between us and the world!” Shame on us for even thinking that’s logical or spiritual! Since when is the weaker vessel supposed to be the symbol of outward holiness to the world? There’s already no difference between saved men and “worldly” men, and hasn’t been for over a thousand years! Men have been wearing pants for so long, we’ve forgotten that in Bible times they didn’t. And if you look at pictures of Charles or James Wesley, acclaimed revivalists, you would discover shoulder length, curled hair. Again, certain time periods would be shocked.

I can see where the society of the 1880s, given their present-day situation and the hypocrisies of the lingering Victorian era, would be shocked and refuse to consider such women wearing pants “godly.” (Given our knowledge of history, it seemed a little shortsighted to allow men to wear pants without addressing the subject or studying the history, but again, they were limited to the perception of their society). To me, it’s a very similar situation as when Paul told the women of Corinth that, given the society in which they lived, it might be wiser for married women to wear veils, because otherwise they would be mistaken for the prostitutes and worshippers of pagan gods who were freely walking the streets with no shame or modesty. “But,” he hastened to add, “We have no such custom….” (1 Cor. 11:16).

All that to say that we have to come to the conclusion that at least to a certain degree, the society in which we live defines modesty!

So there’s what I’ve found when studying the history and issue of women wearing pants.  And I promise, I looked for supporting evidence of not wearing pants, too, there just isn’t much there other than “God told me it was right.”  And if God told you, I’d venture to say that makes it a personal conviction? 

And now, my personal opinion: I like skirts.  I was raised wearing them, and it was drilled into me that anything else was sinful.  While I’m pretty sure that the last bit isn’t true, a small measure of guilt that has been ingrained in me still remains.  Zeke brings up the point that you don’t often see women wearing modest pants, that it start out that way for a few months or years, but eventually once women start wearing pants, they tend to start leaning toward “fitting better” or following after fashions which goes more toward the excessive instead of “not extreme, not lavish, not excessive” as we’re supposed to be.  I can see his point, but I believe that if the heart remains where it’s supposed to be, God can help keep a control on that issue, just as He helps keep a control on all the other issues that we have a tendency to let go to far. 

The end of it: I like skirts and they will likely remain a fair part of my wardrobe, but I do not see any Biblical foundation for condemning the wearing of pants (unless of course, it’s a personal conviction, which is totally different). 

Un-Stuck

Well, in regards to a previous post, it’s beginning to make a little more sense.  I have to admit that I haven’t been studying lately like I should have been, mostly because it’s easier to simply believe what I’ve always believed if I don’t try to study it out.  But I have started picking back up on the studying…very slowly.  That, with some quality intelligent conversation with other people (not necessarily people in agreement with my unusual opinions), has cleared up some of the confusion. 

The crazy rules are still crazy.  There are a lot of things the church does and teaches that doesn’t make sense.  But I have to agree with Zeke, in that it’s important to focus on “what really matters!”  And what DOES really matter? 

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  (Matthew 22:37-40)

A lot of this other stuff?  Well, it doesn’t really matter.  How does making up illogical rules play into loving God with all your heart?  Does it help you love your neighbor more?  Well, then who really cares?  Are we in this thing to keep the church happy or to win souls for God and keep Him happy?  And is what the church teaches REALLY what God is focusing on?

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  (Matthew 15:9)

In this specific instance, Jesus was talking about a particular tradition that the Pharisees had about washing hands before they ate, but it still makes sense…and farther down:

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.  (Matthew 15:18-20)

So you’re not accused of sin today because you eat without washing your hands, but a lot of these crazy rules are pointed toward what your outside looks like.  And we don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about the inside…what REALLY matters is that your heart is right. 

Bitterness?  Attitudes?  Gossip?  Don’t hear much about that…those are acceptable sins…even though those are the ones that the Bible is PLAIN and CLEAR about…

Your hair must have dead ends and never be cut, the skirts have to be 5 inches below the knee, and heaven forbid you enhance your appearance in any way, or have a television in your house…none of which are specifically wrong according to the Bible, but yet, THAT is what we preach about and focus on? 

What REALLY matters?  I don’t know about anyone else, but I feel like I need to worry more about pleasing God with my HEART instead of being so concerned with staying inside that box of rules that the church teaches. 

Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not throwing out all of it, I still believe modesty is Biblical, but I’m all about balance and logic and I don’t think it’s quite been achieved yet. 

And that’s where I am.  Not looking for excuses to change, or even really changing much even though I don’t see things the same way anymore, I’m just looking for what really matters.  And praying that God helps me find it.

Stuck.

I don’t know what to say.  I’m kind of at a loss.  I’m not sure I want to say some things out loud…even though no one I know (well besides my friend, Elle) reads this, I’m just afraid that if I put more of these common sense things in writing…I’m going to influence people to worldliness.  Because everything I’ve always been taught tells me that this type of thinking is nothing BUT worldliness. 

And not just everything I’ve always been taught…everything that’s STILL taught in the church I STILL go to…

And of course, I don’t want to be the influence that helps turn people to worldliness.  That’s not what I’m after at all. 

I’m just not sure anymore.  Everything from the pulpit these days is hammering hard on how all these “crazy rules” are true and we should follow them, and I don’t understand how they can say it’s GOD when there’s nothing in the Bible to back it up.  But at the same time, they sincerely believe it, and I’ve always been taught it, so it’s hard to just discard it as just man’s opinion.  

But then when I study, I’m having a hard time with that, too, because the only thing that happens is I find more questions.  I don’t know.  I really just don’t know. 

I feel kind of stuck.  This is just where I am. 

This verse stood out to me this last week:

Isaiah 54:10
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.

According to the last verse of that chapter, He was referring to the servants of the Lord, so…hopefully He will include me on that promise. 

Sunday Musings

It seems like every time I go to church these days, whether it was a great service or one of them tight and dry ones, I always come home with an urge to vent out some anonymous thoughts. 

For starters, when I walked in this morning I got the handshake and the question.  You know the one, comes right after the “How are you today, Sister?”  Goes something like “Everything okay?  You sure?” and is accompanied by the serious, intense look. 

It works really well.  I went on in to the sanctuary feeling even more like a terrible backslider (or at least one well on her way) and I haven’t done anything except ask questions and seek the truth. 

The tough part is that I love all those people.  And I know that if I don’t abide by that “list of rules” those relationships will take a drastic turn.  I’m not trying to change, I’m trying to understand.  Maybe that’s changing me. 

All I know is that everything I was raised to believe tells me that if I don’t believe and follow the “old ways” without question then I am indeed a backslider and I don’t know how to get away from that even when the truth is looking more and more like something different.  Especially when all we hear is that God wants to take away this and take away that and if you back up on anything, you’re not walking in all the light and that makes it sin for you.  Is asking questions and trying to understand and make sense of these things “backing up on truth?”  Well, apparently it is, if you aren’t coming up with their answers. 

I just need to understand.  I need to know what God wants.  And then I’ll be more than happy to do it.  I’m just having serious doubts that what a man says is “God’s List of Do’s and Do Not’s” really is GOD’S list…

Where Do We Go From Here?

Where does all this come from? Why do we do what we do? Why are we told to go study out the “list of rules” we are taught but then when we do and find something different or that what we are taught doesn’t make sense, we are still expected to blindly follow or else suffer the consequences.

Now maybe the consequences aren’t so severe as to exact a complete ex-communication, but in a manner of speaking, maybe it is. You get the label of backslider. If you continue to attend the congregation, you will be the focus of the altar calls, and you can no longer take part in the services as anything other than a bystander (unless you want to participate by going to the altar at altar call).

But on the other hand, as long as you’re (by all appearances) blindly following the “list of rules” which make you “saved,” then you will never be allowed to resign any of the roles in service of which you participate (without suffering through altar calls and sermons on taking up your cross and doing the job God has for you). God can never call you to anything else and if you feel that He is, you would be mistaken. So it would seem, that the only way to move on to what God is calling you to do, that you must get kicked out of your participation. I'm seriously not bitter about it, just confused.

Why does it all have to be so difficult. Why do PEOPLE have to be so difficult. And where do we go from here? Do we keep following the senseless rules so that we can keep our standing with people even though it’s not people’s opinion that makes you saved? Or do we drop it all and simply follow God even though it may mean the people label us as backsliders? Can we do both? My gut says there’s a pretty big fork in the road ahead and and my question remains…where do we go from here?

I don’t think I’m really doing so good on spelling out exactly what I’m thinking but…this has been another post from my rambling subconscious.

Sophie, out.

Tricky Balance

Thing is, this balance thing isn’t just about how you look or what you wear (that’s just all I’ve gotten to so far).  But I’m not looking for an excuse to look different or change anything, my biggest issue is how can you witness to people of this “lifestyle” when you can’t even make sense of it yourself?  I can’t bring people into a church and lifestyle that I am having a hard time believing in myself.  I know, it’s always said, you don’t bring them to a church, you bring them to Jesus and He’ll show them how to live, but then when you do that, they are expected to come to OUR church and then in a given amount of time, it’s expected that God will show them that they are supposed to live this long list of rules. 

Now I don’t know if anyone else questions it or not, but it’s always been said when the changes in appearance start showing up that “God showed them.”  Did He really?  Or was it more that everyone else was doing it and so it must be the right thing to do.  No, you don’t HAVE to say anything if the majority is doing it…nobody wants to be the odd duck.  Especially  when it comes to being part of a group that’s going to heaven.

But if they look like they’ve changed the outside, it’s all good and everybody’s happy (even if they don’t quite understand why they are doing certain things…just that God must be in it). 

But then trouble comes if the individual doesn’t start showing outward changes in a certain amount of time.  In that case, the general perception is that they didn’t get anything in the first place, the individual is treated differently (as if they don’t really want to be part of the group after all and just needs to get saved again, and the group moves on), and the individual eventually disappears (which in the group’s mind proves their original point and they may or may not go back and try to win back this poor backslidden soul). 

Now in some cases, that might have been a true perception, maybe they really didn’t get anything in the first place.  But maybe it was because it was the dress code or the list of do’s and don’ts that was preached and little or nothing about what should be working on the INSIDE. 

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe I’m not.  Maybe I’ll figure it all out one day.

Shine On, Shine Off?

You can put products in your hair to make it shiny and healthy and prevent breakage but you can’t put anything on your fingernails to make them shiny and healthy and prevent breakage. 

Well this is a pretty straightforward crazy rule.  As far as I’ve ever found, there isn’t anything in the Bible regarding hair products and what you can use to keep it healthy and shiny.  Or even whether or not you should be able to change the color or not.  That brings to mind another one of those controversial rules…

You can’t dye your hair because God gave you the color He wants you to have.  However, He also gave women hair on their legs and in their armpits but it’s okay to shave that off. 

Okay there are lots of weird rules on hair…I guess hair might get it’s own separate post. 

But moving on with the healthy hair thing.  So you can use frizz out and moisturizing shampoos and hairspray and whatever else you need (as long as it doesn’t alter your color any) to make your hair look it’s best (which I am all in favor of the “hair looking it’s best” part) but if you put any kind of healthy nail formula on your nails (even if it’s clear and isn’t changing the natural look God gave us), you’re on the broad way that leadeth to destruction.  I mean, really?  Where do you get that? 

Granted, there’s a balance…dying your hair purple or wearing hot pink sparkly nail polish isn’t exactly demonstrating modesty, which is DEFINITELY in the Bible.  But there IS a balance.  Why is that so difficult? 

I think another post on balance would be good…that is really what I’m looking for right now. 

The Great Lengths Battle

This isn’t the craziest rule, just the first one I’m elaborating on…as I said before, I’m not posting these according to level of craziness since they’re pretty much all on the same level…with that said…

Pants that end just below the knee (aka shorts) on men are sinful.  However, girls can wear skirts ranging in length from just below the knee to the floor and it’s modest. 

Now that statement alone would be enough to make a person question the sanity of that rule, but let me just throw out one of the major arguments in favor of the women’s dress standard:

Men are turned on by sight and therefore women should dress modestly so we don’t cause them to sin (I just summed up at least an hours worth of sermon in that one statement—wow, I’m good.  LOL). 

Now taking that argument, wouldn’t the rule make more sense if it was the other way around?  Not that I’m saying it should be, just that it would make more sense if it was.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disagreeing with modesty, because the Bible DOES call for modesty, I’m simply saying that modesty is subjective.  As in, something that God shows you as an individual, not something that can be defined by a set of rules. 

I personally do not feel anything wrong with skirts that are below the knee or longer, and I’d have to say that the majority of conservatives would agree with that statement. 

However, on the flip side (and the majority of conservatives would NOT agree with this statement), I do not feel anything is wrong with PANTS that are below the knee or longer. 

Strangely enough, I don’t walk around drooling at the sight of a man’s calf or shin, and in all seriousness, I don’t generally walk around looking at the legs of guys in shorts, period.  And I don’t know of anyone who does.  Seriously, I mean even if I were to notice a guys legs, they usually look kinda like their arms and it’s not something that would give a girl heart palpitations or anything.  And although I can’t speak from a guy’s perspective, I don’t think they lust after our calves or shins (especially not mine, thanks to a childhood as a tomboy).  LOL. 

Perhaps I’m wrong.  It wouldn’t be the first time, but I just can’t see any sense in this rule. 

Common Sense

Sometimes I just can’t help but wonder where common sense went?  I don’t know who made up some of these “rules” that the conservative movement lives by, but some of them just don’t make good horse sense. 

Like how one thing is taboo for this reason, but another thing (using the same reasoning) is okay.  Perhaps I shall elaborate further in other posts.  I would post them in order of ridiculousness, but I’m not sure that’s possible since most of them fall pretty much in the same category.

Yet, any time you doubt any of those crazy rules, you’re automatically dropped in one of the following categories:

• Making room for the flesh
• Having a spirit of worldliness
• Backslidden (or in the process of backsliding)

Why is that?  Why is it a problem to question things? 

Is it because they have a flimsy (and perhaps un-biblical) foundation and you don’t want that to be uncovered?  Or is it more that there is a concern that if one thing is let go, that everything else will change?  And although I can kinda see where that argument would come from, since I’ve seen those that have let one thing go and then went crazy, I just wonder why there can’t be a balance?  No crazy rules and no going crazy without those crazy rules? 

Common sense…is that too much to ask?

Seeking The Balance

Being brought up in a very conservative environment, certain ways and thought patterns have kinda been ingrained into me.  Many things just WERE, and many times without any real basis.  Just because. 

And those who didn’t do or look like we did…well, they were all sinners.  And if they were “church-goers” and didn’t do or look like we did, there was “righteous judgment” reserved for those poor individuals (except it was always shared with other holy righteous ones, rarely spoken to God about, and almost NEVER shared with the offender).  Heaven forbid we remember that gossip is also a sin. 

As I have gotten older and slightly more open-minded (that fact alone would reserve some pretty harsh judgment for me, I’m afraid), I have tried to study out the things that we have always been taught.  The studying (along with some common sense) has raised many questions. 

A lot of questions that the standard jargon just doesn’t adequately answer.  And one person even told me that when you start questioning the “old ways” you’ve already lost anything you ever had. 

See what I mean about the “righteous” judgment thing?  You don’t even have to DO differently, just have a few doubts about it and you can still qualify for a healthy dose of judgmentalism.

Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees…it’s easy to see all the negative aspects of it, and the people who are haters, and the rules that don’t make sense.  It’s not all negatives.  But when a person is seeking the balance and there’s a load of negative on one side, it’s difficult not to automatically compensate by leaning toward the other.   

This is another reason for the opening of this blog.  To clear my mind and vent some of my thoughts, frustrations, and questions without invoking the wrath and judgment of the close-minded ones who may read my real life blog. 

I feel a little alone because although I have talked to Zeke and a few other close friends about this, at this point, no one I know has this blog address or knows I’m attached to it.  But God does.  And I know I’m never truly alone.  Most of the time that’s comforting.  LOL. 

God, please clear my thoughts and help me find YOUR balance.  Not what I’ve always been taught, not what everybody around me says, but what you say.  Thanks Lord.