Covering the Head

An Article in Response to Frequent Questions Regarding 1 Co 11:1-16.

Paul wrote a fascinating passage to the Corinthians that laid down principles regarding coverings of the head. There he gave counsel for women, for men, for persons in worship and in prayer, and for persons inclined to argue about such things.

From the counsel given Christians have historically come to one of the following conclusions:

1.            The counsel was historically and culturally sensitive, adapted to the social norms of the first century church in Corinth. Its counsels teach us some important principles but are not applicable in a literal way to our situation.

2.            The counsel is authoritative for Christians in all places and at all times. Women should have their hair covered with a bonnet or some other similar device.

3.            The counsel is authoritative for Christians in all places and at all times. Women should cultivate a feminine appearance by growing out their hair. Men should cultivate a masculine appearance by keeping their hair short.

I would like to begin the study with a point that might fit nicely into any one of the three views. Namely:

1Co 11:16  But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Whatever position I come to I should abide by it in life. But the femininity or masculinity of hair or coverings was not customarily made an issue of debate in Corinth or in the other first century churches. It just is not that kind of issue where a variety of opinions must be harmonized for the church to function effectively.

Next I would like to eliminate the first of the three traditional views as scripturally erroneous.

There are ways to hint at cultural norms and local situations. Paul indicated that his counsel regarding celibacy was given, “not by commandment” but “by permission.” It was not to test all persons in all ages for it was written in view of the “present distress”, the persecution lethally dividing many young Christian homes. 1 Co 7:6, 26.

But 1 Co 11:1-16 is couched in no such culturally-sensitive language. Rather, it is worded in universal language that can be recognized by anyone who takes the scripture as it own interpreter.

Verse three speaks of “every man” being headed by Christ. Verse four speaks of “every man praying.” Verse five speaks of “every woman that prayeth.” Verse seven speaks of man being made in the “image” of God as a reason for the counsel. Verse eight refers to the creation order of Adam and Eve at the founding of the human race.

Verse nine speaks of God’s purpose in making the feminine gender.  Verse twelve brings these things up again and beckons men to consider that they all have female mothers. Verses thirteen to fourteen invite the reader to make a judgment call, not based on cultural norms, but rather on what “nature itself” teaches.

It would be difficult to make a more emphatic point that what you are writing is for the race and not merely for first century Corinthians.

A third point to make would be that Paul was not innovating. He introduces the issue of coverings by bidding the Corinthians to follow him as he has followed Jesus.

The Simple Answer

Many Jewish writings are easier for western minds to decipher if they are read in reverse, reading the final thoughts first and working backwards. Bible writers often wrote effect-cause-cause where western minds are accustomed to reading cause-cause-effect.

This passage is no exception. We have already begun with verse sixteen (above). The next verse in reverse is:

15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

This is not difficult of understanding. Long hair for a woman is “a glory to her.” It is feminine and comely. Her hair is gift from God to her, given her for “a covering.” A covering of what? Very apparently, “of her head.”

The verse before this is equally easy of understanding.

14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Where the natural instincts of the race have not been corrupted (as they are in homosexuality, for example), comparatively short hair is considered a masculine trait. Long hair, according to nature (even if not according to society) ought to embarrass a male as being feminine. By way of contrast, his hair was not given him for a covering of the head.

If we understand these three verses, 1 Co 11:14-16, the rest of the passage comes together nicely.

13  Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Paul was appealing to the natural feelings of uncorrupted persons. Do persons, naturally, still associate long hair with females? It was a counter-culture movement that brought in long hair for the men. And what exactly does Paul bid us judge? Namely whether an uncovered person is “comely” in prayer.

8  For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Whether the symbol of submission to authority that the woman “ought” to have is a covering of hair or otherwise, these verses mean the same thing. They teach that women were created to help men and, at the same time, that both genders were to be mutually dependant in God’s plan.

God’s original plan helps us  understand the verse before these ones.

7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So man was made in God’s image. Apparently he was made well for communion with God. That is what he was made for. And the woman was made, by the analogy of the verse, for communion with the man. When he speaks to his Creator his masculinity ought not be obscured by long hair. And when she was made, she was also made well. She was made femine. When she talks to her husband, he appreciates this feature of her existence. And her Creator does also.

4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6  For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

These verses can be read simply as they stand when the verses following them are taken at face value. A praying man with long hair dishonors his Creator who made him masculine. And a praying woman with short hair belittles her femininity and thus her role as a helper to her husband. Thus her husband is dishonored.

And if she have short hair it is not that much different, in terms of femininity, than if she were shaved. Bald is masculine, short hair is masculine.

And Paul tries to use the repugnance of the thought of a bald woman to move ladies to treasure their covering of long hair.

And the issue of authority is the root issue in the relation of the genders. That is how Paul introduced the whole topic.

3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

That is all there is to the passage regarding hair and coverings. It is neither complex nor obscure. If we accept that “hair was given her for a covering” and that women should be feminine, all is clear.

Yet there is one other point. Conscience rules the Christian. If a woman reading this is not persuaded that she could please her Savior while removing her bonnet, let the bonnet remain. A conscience void of offence against God is an inestimable treasure. It is worth the loss of friends and warmth to keep it, though it must always be kept with friendliness and warmth.

This is the point of:

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

Amen.

For the Word Doc: Covering_the_Head

I grew up with relatives living nearby. Our typical family social was to play board games. Monopoly, Risk, Stratego, Boggle, Rail Baron, Scrabble and probably a score of others were routinely seen on our kitchen table.

And we would play Rook and checkers.

But we didn’t play with a regular set of playing cards. Such cards were associated with gambling, and gamblers we were not.

This past week I received an email from one young man asking if it was OK to play Rook and chess. That question brought back many memories, some emotions, and a conviction that it is time to write a paper about such amusements.

Pleasure Seeking

We were created for God’s pleasure. Re 4:11. And Paul said that he could “take pleasure” in his weaknesses since these were opportunities for God’s power to be seen. And one answer John gave to the question “Why does God answer our prayers?” was that “we . . . do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”

1Jo 3:22  And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

The short point that I am making is that pleasure is not evil. Eating a ripe pear is pleasurable. Marriage, when sanctified, is pleasurable.

All that being said, it is just as apparent that pleasure is associated in scripture with moral danger. (See below). We can’t just assume that something pleasurable is also honorable.

And that brings us to the question addressed by this paper. Which pleasures are wholesome? And which are forbidden?

Character Conquest

One of the dangers in pleasure seeking is that it can become addictive. A life may easily become absorbed in a round of activities characterized by the words “survive” and “seek amusement.” And such a life is very poor soil for the growth of the Christian graces associated with salvation. Such a life brings forth “no fruit” that can be called ripe.

Lu 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures <2237> of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

The “love” of pleasure, so well cultivated by playing games, also produces pecuniary problems. It creates a distaste for useful work and a taste for self-indulgence.

Pr 21:17  He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.

There are sinful pleasures and Moses understood that we must choose between indulging them and serving God.

Heb 11:25  [Moses chose] rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

“How,” a young man might ask, “is it that ‘pleasures of this life’ tend to choke the good seed of the Word?”

The Word of God causes us to grow into the measure “of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph 4:13. That is the ripe “perfection” that Lu 8:14 is pointing to. The principles that actuated Jesus become our own as we “receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save our souls.” James 1:19.

And pleasure seeking, of the game-playing variety, is nearly an opposite of the Bible principle of selflessness. Seeking to conquer my neighbor chokes in me the sacrificial qualities of Christ’s character. These are prevented from maturing while I take joy in winning. And especially is this so when I win because I am more skillful to play than my neighbor. You can see the choking nature of pleasure seeking when you contrast it with the following verses.

Ro 15:1-2  We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2  Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

1Co 10:24  Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.

1Co 10:33  Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

The Pains of Pleasure Seeking

Where do “wars” and “fightings” in the church come from? They are the result of serving our pleasures. The word “lusts” in James 4:1 is the same as the choking “pleasures” of Luke 8.

Jas 4:1  From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts <2237> that war in your members?

Pleasure seeking, for all its popularity, fails to satisfy. Solomon found that even his nearly unlimited access to pleasure led to an empty feeling. And in wisdom he warned us that in our old age many of the pleasures of life will be inaccessible. A life of pleasure-seeking does not bode well for a happy dotage.

Ec 2:1  I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.

Ec 12:1  Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

Pleasure Seeking at the End

2Ti 3:1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, . . .  lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

So in our day the love of pleasure will tip the moral scale. There is nothing censurable about enjoying God’s gifts. But a love for pleasure can grow until it exceeds a love for God. The peril is in cultivating our love for pleasure. That is how it grows. Observe in your past and in that of others how game playing cultivates a love for itself.

Conversion involves a turning away from such things. No, not from enjoying life, but from serving enjoyment. Decisions based on what is pleasurable – this is the nature of the foolish old life.

Tit 3:3  For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures <2237>, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Sinful Pleasures?

We need not say that a pleasure is sinful to say that we must avoid it. It is the choking nature of serving pleasures that we are trying to escape.

Yet living the American dream, having an abundance of good things, is compared by James to being fattened up for slaughter. It is indulgence today at the expense of dying tomorrow.

Jas 5:5  Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been [living for pleasure, or luxuriously.]; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.

The problem with such pleasure is that it supplants good activity. As fat calves would better be running than chewing, so men would better be seeking out the needy than indulging in idle amusements. If gross immorality brought Sodom’s fall, yet that was a secondary fault. The original was idle indulgence that debased the character and set the stage for later debauchery.

Eze 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

But What About Rook and Chess?

Some never will permit God to condemn new vices with old statements. If the vice wasn’t named before it existed, it can’t be condemned. So they seem to reason.

Said another way, if the Devil repackages an old vice after the death of a prophet, some will never allow themselves to be persuaded that the new package in dangerous.

Rook is the blind spot in the eyes of a blind North American church. Like the Amish that will not drive cars, but will hire drivers; or who will not have a telephone in their home, but will use one on a public corner, so is the Adventist who will not play “cards” but will play Rook or Uno. The worldling looks on with bewilderment. Not so strange as the conviction, in his way of thinking, is the silly inconsistency.

The fact is that heaven condemns the cultivation of self-serving, or pleasure-seeking. And Rook and Chess are both involved in that condemnation. Heaven condemns, with holy jealousy, its competition for our attention. It condemns the choking vines that threaten our tender spiritual life.

We should replace our vices with virtues, our self-serving with other-serving. Such activity could mean an eternal lengthening of our tranquility.

Da 4:27  Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.

Conclusion

Lu 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures <2237> of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Appendix

Ellen White addresses the topic of pleasure-seeking repeatedly. This ought to be expected from an end-time prophet in light of Paul’s declaration that the end-time perils for Christians include loving pleasure more than loving God.

Here are a smattering of her statements:

After a day of pleasure seeking is ended, where is the satisfaction to the pleasure seeker? As Christian workers, whom have they helped to a better, higher, and purer life? What would they see if they should look over the record the angel wrote? A day lost! To their own souls a day lost, a day lost in the service of Christ, because no good was accomplished. They may have other days but never that day which was idled away in cheap, foolish talk, of girls with boys, and boys with girls.  {AH 472.4}

Never will these same opportunities offer themselves again. They had better been doing the hardest kind of labor on that holiday. They did not make the right use of their holiday, and it passed into eternity to confront them in the judgment as a day misspent.  {AH 473.1}

As the time of their probation was closing, the antediluvians gave themselves up to exciting amusements and festivities. Those who possessed influence and power were bent on keeping the minds of the people engrossed with mirth and pleasure, lest any should be impressed by the last solemn warning. Do we not see the same repeated in our day? While God’s servants are giving the message that the end of all things is at hand, the world is absorbed in amusements and pleasure seeking. There is a constant round of excitement that causes indifference to God and prevents the people from being impressed by the truths which alone can save them from the coming destruction.  {AH 524.2}

If the frivolous and pleasure-seeking will allow their minds to dwell upon the real and true, the heart cannot but be filled with reverence, and they will adore the God of nature. The contemplation and study of God’s character as revealed in His created works will open a field of thought that will draw the mind away from low, debasing, enervating amusements. The knowledge of God’s works and ways we can only begin to obtain in this world; the study will be continued throughout eternity. God has provided for man subjects of thought which will bring into activity every faculty of the mind. We may read the character of the Creator in the heavens above and the earth beneath, filling the heart with gratitude and thanksgiving. Every nerve and sense will respond to the expressions of God’s love in His marvelous works.  {CG 50.1}

We need not tax ourselves with rehearsing how much has been given to the cause of God, but rather let us consider how much has been kept back from His treasury to be devoted to the indulgence of self in pleasure seeking and self-gratification. We need not reckon up how many agents have been sent forth, but rather recount how many have closed the eyes of their understanding, so that they might not see their duty and minister to others according to their several ability.  {CS 289.3}

The rest which Christ and His disciples took was not self-indulgent rest. The time they spent in retirement was not devoted to pleasure seeking. They talked together regarding the work of God, and the possibility of bringing greater efficiency to the work. The disciples had been with Christ, and could understand Him; to them He need not talk in parables. He corrected their errors, and made plain to them the right way of approaching the people. He opened more fully to them the precious treasures of divine truth. They were vitalized by divine power, and inspired with hope and courage.  {DA 361.3}

I was shown that the position of Dr. E in regard to amusements was wrong, and that his views of physical exercise were not all correct. The amusements which he recommends hinder the recovery of health in many cases to one that is helped by them. He has to a great degree condemned physical labor for the sick, and his teaching in many cases has proved a great injury to them. Such mental exercise as playing cards, chess, and checkers excites and wearies the brain and hinders recovery, while light and pleasant physical labor will occupy the time, improve the circulation, relieve and restore the brain, and prove a decided benefit to the health. But take from the invalid all such employment, and he becomes restless, and, with a diseased imagination, views his case as much worse than it really is, which tends to imbecility.  {1T 554.3}

SHALL WE UNDERSTAND BY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF RECREATION, THAT YOU APPROBATE SUCH VAIN AMUSEMENTS AS CHESS, CHECKERS, CHARADES, BACK-GAMMON, HUNT-THE-WHISTLE, AND BLIND-MAN’S-BUFF?  {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 24}

IT IS GENERALLY REPORTED IN THIS CONFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN AN INTEREST IN THE AMUSEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRACTICED AT THE HEALTH INSTITUTE AT BATTLE CREEK, THAT YOU PLAY CHECKERS, AND CARRY A CHECKER-BOARD WITH YOU AS YOU VISIT THE BRETHREN FROM PLACE TO PLACE.  — ISAAC SANBORN, H. C. BLANCHARD ; R. F. ANDREWS,   Answer:

Since I professed to be a follower of Christ at the age of twelve years, I have never engaged in any such simple plays and amusements as named above. Neither have I at any time given my influence in their favor. I do not know how to play at checkers, chess, back-gammon, fox-and-geese, or any thing of the kind. I have spoken in favor of recreation, but have ever stood in great doubt of the amusements introduced at the Institute at Battle Creek, and have stated my objections to the physicians and directors, and others, in conversation with them, and by numerous letters.  {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 26}

On pages 24-26 of Testimony No. 12, I have spoken of “Recreation for Christians,” as follows:–  {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 27}

“I was shown that Sabbath-keepers as a people labor too hard without allowing themselves change, or periods of rest. Recreation is needful to those who are engaged in physical labor, yet still more essential for those whose labors are principally mental.  {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 28}

“I was shown that it is not essential to our salvation, nor for the glory of God, for us to keep the mind laboring, even upon religious themes, constantly and excessively. There are amusements which we cannot approve, because Heaven condemns them,–such as dancing, card-playing, chess, checkers, &c. These amusements open the door for great evil. Their tendencies are not beneficial, but their influence upon the mind is to excite and produce in some minds a passion for those plays which lead to gambling, and dissolute lives. All such plays should be condemned by Christians. Something should be substituted in the place of these amusements. Something can be invented, perfectly harmless.  {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 29}

It began in the Sanitarium before Dr. Kellogg came into the institution. Persons who came there to board and room brought in chess playing and many other amusements. This was not right, and the Lord rebuked the management. Our Sanitariums are not to cater to the perverted tastes of worldly people. The same evils have existed in the Sanitarium on the hillside. A few years ago the managers made it more of a hotel than an institution for healing the sick. In the rooms of the guests could be seen the wine bottles that they had brought with them. The boarders indulged appetite for many harmful things. God was not at all pleased with the course pursued by the management in allowing such indulgence; for His purpose in the establishment of the institution was not being carried out. . . . Whether patronage increases or decreases, right principles must be upheld in the Lord’s institutions. In all our work we are to show the advantage of a health reform diet. Between us and the world there is to be a distinct line of demarcation.  {KC 143.5}

Various entertainments, some of them of a theatrical character, have been introduced into the Sanitarium for the benefit of the patients. These amusements, which are similar to those in vogue at other health institutions, too often take the place of religion and devotion. And they are necessarily attended with extra care and expense; but this is a small consideration when compared with the loss to spirituality and true religion integrity.  {PH100 68.3}

When the game of checkers was introduced at the Institute a few years since, I was shown that its tendencies were evil. It might amuse, but it would result in far more harm than good. That which is thought to be a benefit is in reality a detriment. The nerves become excited, the mental forces are unduly taxed, and recovery of health is hindered.  {PH100 69.1}

Life in the cities is false and artificial. The intense passion for money getting, the whirl of excitement and pleasure seeking, the thirst for display, the luxury and extravagance–all are forces that, with the great masses of mankind, are turning the mind from life’s true purpose. They are opening the door to a thousand evils. Upon the youth they have almost irresistible power. One of the most subtle and dangerous temptations that assails the children and youth in the cities is the love of pleasure. Holidays are numerous; games and horse racing draw thousands, and the whirl of excitement and pleasure attracts them away from the sober duties of life. Money that should have been saved for better uses is frittered away for amusements.  {AH 135.1}

See also: RH, February 20, 1866 pars. 21-22

The Christian experience works like this: God works tirelessly to reveal divine love to a man. The man is moved by God’s revelation to turn from his sins and to depend on God. Love continues to move him. He depends with faith, by living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

God pardons the dependent repentant one and lives through him, appealing to his will and to his mind. The man is transformed by considering Christ. As he was changed initially, by choosing Christ over sins, so he is changed continually.

Faith, love, beholding – the three human elements, determine our growth or regression. As they prosper, so do we. As they decline, we also.

Good Works

I was interested to discover that the term “good works” is used nearly a score of times in the New Testament, and never once as it is usually used today. I mean that today men mention “good works” normally by way of explanation that they can not save us. Typical sentences sound like this, “But good works can never save us. All our good works are filthy rags.”

Now these two statements are true enough. But a man could nearly be excused for thinking that good works were a synonym for working one’s way to heaven. That would make good works bad – a strange irony.

By way of contrast consider the New Testament thoughts about good works:

We should let our “good works” “shine before men” for the Father’s glory. Jesus did “many good works” and used this fact to convict his persecutors of their injustice. So may we.

Tabitha, the first grown woman in scripture to be raised to life, was “full of good works.” And this is well, for women “professing godliness” should be clothed with “good works.” When older, they should be “well reported” for “good works” and if a widow has “diligently followed every good work” should be admitted into the church’s care.

We are God’s workmanship, created through the work of Jesus unto “good works” so that we can “walk in them.” “Good works” are “manifest” before the judgment. We ought to be “rich in good works.”

In fact, the man of God ought to be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all “good works.” Religious leaders ought to in “all things” show themselves to be a “pattern of good works.”

What Jesus wants to do is to “purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” So a minister ought to “affirm constantly that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.” This is profitable for men.

We ought to “learn to maintain good works” or risk being “unfruitful.” Accordingly, we ought to consider each other and “provoke unto love and to good works.”

See Mt 5:16; Jn 10:32; [1Pe 2:12; Ro 13:3]; Ac 9:36; Ep 2:10; 1Ti 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2Ti 3:17; Ti 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; He 10:24.

All which truths are my reasons for writing this essay. As an elder in the Seventh-day Adventist church it is my way of discharging the duty to “affirm constantly” that my brethren should carefully “maintain good works.”

Against “Movies”

The rational arguments against enjoying dramatized entertainment, the movies, can be well summarized. First, God is wiser than man, and God has counseled against such enjoyment. Second, we morally adapt to the objects of our attention. In other words, we are changed by “beholding.” Third, our sense of the sinfulness of sin is deadened by familiarity. Fourth, our get-up-and-go degenerates when we treat problems passively—as movie watchers must. Fifth, the moral strength of men to resist immoral thoughts is sadly reduced by every cherished view of a poorly clad female. Sixth, time given to questionable uses is robbed from wholly wholesome uses, and we do not have enough time to discharge even the most basic of our duties in terms of Bible-study and Evangelism. Seventh, the change in the relation of the church youth to movies sets them up to be deceived by the “last deception” the church will face over the “Testimonies of the Spirit.” Eighth, the issue of movies tests our source of authority – whether we give inspiration unqualified preference to experience or consensus. That same nature of test will be Salvational for the entire world a short time from now. Ninth, the indulgence in watching such entertainment increases men’s love for pleasure while reducing their inclination to diligent study of the Word.

These nine reasons, unproved and even unsubstantiated in the summary above, all find their origin in the first. God is wiser than man.

God is Wiser than Man

1Co 1:25  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

How it is that professed Christians feel at liberty to minimize or marginalize God’s counsels? Who are they? The wise man answers that it is men’s laziness that prompts them to disregard sound reasoning. To engage in research of God’s counsel is more difficult than the lazy mind can bear to consider and so, as a way out, the mind reasons that it has already heard arguments and already has a rational conclusion.

Pr 26:16  The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

Laziness allows some men to violate God’s counsels ignorantly – but not innocently. But for many that have read the counsels time and society have simply blotted out the impression. They have forgotten the force of God’s prohibitions. Their sense of moral responsibility to guard their senses is deadened.

For these and others I will review here a few Bible counsels to the point and in the appendix a few Testimonies to the same.

Ps 101:3  I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

The prophet of the psalms models responsible use of one’s eyes. The willful watching of evil violates his admonition.

God-forgetting sinners are “filled” with “fornication, wickedness, covetousness,” etc. Then there is the class who “knowing the judgment of God” against such sins not only “do the same” but “have pleasure” in those that do. A better description of those who look to the cinema for entertainment could hardly be devised.

How must it appear to holy recording angels when men choose for themselves to watch fornication, wickedness, or covetousness? Or murder or debate or deceit? Do we remember that they which “do such things are worthy of death” and yet take it all in as a harmless diversion? Or as an inspiration?

Ro 1:28-32  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, . . . disobedient to parents, . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God’s wisdom is such that, if we failed to ascertain the reason for His Counsel to avoid theatrical entertainments, we ought still to implicitly obey. To wait until we can see wisdom in His wisdom is manifestly unbelief.

And God has plainly spoken that neither the unreal nor the untrue nor the dishonest nor the impure subjects are to receive our attention.

Phil 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

We Morally Adapt to the Subjects We Consider

Most Adventists are familiar with the truth that “by beholding” we “become changed.” We hope this principle from 2 Cor 3:18 will allow us to be assimilated into likeness to Jesus. That is the value in considering often Christ’s sacrifice. Heb 12:1-3.

But the principle works both ways. This is why we should make no friendship “with an angry man.” We would be changed by being in his society. Then how is it that we choose, for entertainers, men of lax morals?

2 Co 3:18  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Pr 22:24  Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go

Sin, by Familiarity, Ceases to be Exceeding Sinful in our Estimation

Television programming works at cross purposes with the Law of God. Familiarity with sin, the constant repetition of its grosser examples, makes lesser examples seem nearly innocuous. The Law of God, on the contrary, makes even the smallest infractions stand out in bold relief as causing the death of the Son of God.  The Law makes sin appear to be “sin.”

Ro 7:13  Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Movies Encourage Passive Habits in an Age that Demands Action  

The wisdom of spiders is that they get started on the projects that others might rather put off till later.

Pr 30:28  The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings’ palaces.

The fact is that television creates a habit of non-interventive behavior. We see persons in distress and remain reclined – waiting for someone else to rescue them. But just such a disconnect between perception and action characterizes the lost.

Ja 2:15-16  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Mt 25:44  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

The last thing we need is another influence in our life to desensitize us to our personal accountability to act.

Looking at Women Lustfully Undoes Spiritual Men

David’s story is sadly sufficient. Men today can not afford to have a glowing screen of bathing Bathshebas. Nor can they deny that the lusts of the eye threaten their very spiritual life. The scriptures on this point are too numerous for such a paper as this.

Mt 5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

Pr 6:25  Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

Jas 1:14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jas 1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

2Pe 2:14  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

1Jo 2:16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Yet three which sum up the rest particularly point to an active avoidance of both the big-screen and of the little ones. We would not want to make provision for our own fall by consenting to watch questionable items.

2Ti 2:22  Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

1Pe 2:11  Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Ro 13:14  But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

We Cannot Redeem the Time while Watching Television

Time given to questionable uses is robbed from wholly wholesome uses, and we do not have enough time to discharge even the most basic of our duties in terms of Bible-study and Evangelism.

The Bible calls our duty to the lost a “debt.” Romans 1:14. By neglecting our duty to share we can “steal” God’s words from them to whom we owe them. Jer 23:30. We ought to be redeeming the time. If we will give account for every idle word, what will we do in the judgment regarding every idle hour?

Eph 5:16  Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Col 4:5  Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

Mt 12:36  But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Despise not Prophesying and Heed not Consensus

The change in the relation of the church youth to movies sets them up to be deceived by the “last deception” the church will face over the “Testimonies of the Spirit.” That deception will be to make the testimonies of “none effect.” Mar p. 158. The counsels given in the appendix to this paper are ideally suited to be ignored by pleasure-seeking youth.

1Th 5:20  Despise not prophesyings.

1Th 4:8  He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

2Ch 20:20  …Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.

Those concerned about their own souls might well practice today for tomorrow’s test. By searching the inspired data to ascertain for one’s self what God says, a man may be prepared to stand when confronted with flimsy evidence that God did not mean what God said.

The final test of the world will pit experience and consensus, on one side, with God’s plain statements on the other. This will be the Salvational test. And is not the issue of watching DVD movies and such a microcosm of the same today? Is not the issue one of God’s plain statements in the Testimonies versus the consensus of two generations and versus the experience of the same? If we fail in the little test here, can we expect to stand in the greater one later?

Love of Pleasure Competes with Love for God

The indulgence in watching such entertainment increases men’s love for pleasure while reducing their inclination to diligent study of the Word. The dictates of God and of pleasure differ here – much as in the Garden of Eden.

The judgment above, give for the benefit of the angels, will have in our life plenty of evidence whether we sought to more for the one or more for the other.

2Ti 3:2-5  For men shall be . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Conclusion:

We are worldly and know it not. We need more of Jesus and seem to sense that truth. But we have been blinded to how our tradition of self-entertainment is blunting our spiritual perceptions.

Our compassion for the lost, a virtue little cultivated by caring action, is being replaced with a pseudo virtue of revenge on the oppressors or rebellion against unjust authority. These themes of the Great Controversy play out in the scenes we watch and we identify with the violent heroes who so ably portray Lucifer’s feelings.

And even if it is only the Little House on the Prairie that keeps our attention, it is as the expense of conscience. We have ignored God’s plain counsel for no better reasons than a supposition that ignoring them would not hurt us. And, yes, not reading them is ignoring them.

Appendix

Testimonies Regarding Theatrical Entertainment

In the following indented quotations from Ellen White all emphasis is supplied.

Television, movies, ad-frames and video-clips have taken over an ill service to society once performed by novels and billboards, though the latter still make a contribution. The collection of them “educate the mind to familiarity with sin.” Sensible parents will realize the value of avoiding “seeing many of the evils” and “hearing about much of the wickedness.”

In Christian homes a bulwark should be built against temptation. Satan is using every means to make crime and degrading vice popular. We cannot walk the streets of our cities without encountering flaring notices of crime presented in some novel or to be acted at some theater. The mind is educated to familiarity with sin. The course pursued by the base and vile is kept before the people in the periodicals of the day, and everything that can arouse passion is brought before them in exciting stories.  {AH 406.2}

Some fathers and mothers are so indifferent, so careless, that they think it makes no difference whether their children attend a church school or a public school. “We are in the world,” they say, “and we cannot get out of it.” But, parents, we can get a good way out of the world, if we choose to do so. We can avoid seeing many of the evils that are multiplying so fast in these last days. We can avoid hearing about much of the wickedness and crime that exist.  {AH 406.3}

Men may take a “safe course.” “No Christian would wish to meet death” while taking in a movie via his DVD player. “No one would want to me found” in such an activity when Christ should come. Such activity poisons the imagination and destroys religious impressions. Further, it blunts “the relish for the tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life.”

The true Christian will not desire to enter any place of amusement or engage in any diversion upon which he cannot ask the blessing of God. He will not be found at the theater, the billiard hall, or the bowling saloon. He will not unite with the gay waltzers or indulge in any other bewitching pleasure that will banish Christ from the mind.  {AH 515.4}

To those who plead for these diversions we answer, We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance. No Christian would wish to meet death in such a place. No one would wish to be found there when Christ shall come.  {AH 516.1}

Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater. Instead of being a school for morality and virtue, as is so often claimed, it is the very hotbed of immorality. Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes deprave the imagination and debase the morals. Every youth who habitually attends such exhibitions will be corrupted in principle. There is no influence in our land more powerful to poison the imagination, to destroy religious impressions, and to blunt the relish for the tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life than theatrical amusements. The love for these scenes increases with every indulgence as the desire for intoxicating drink strengthens with its use. The only safe course is to shun the theater, the circus, and every other questionable place of amusement.  {AH 516.2}

Yesteryear’s debate about whether Ellen White’s prohibitions against the theater spoke with equal authority about the home cinema was settled by Ellen White long ago. The sanitarium thought to bring short theatrical performances into an Adventist setting for the casual refreshment of the guests. God testified that “the more [the patients] have of this kind of amusement, the less will they be pleased unless something of the kind shall be continually carried on.”

And she made the connection that looks like prophecy today, namely that once such amusements would make their way into the home “the objections are removed” against attending “high-toned” shows at the theater. Such an outcome ought to be prevented with the next generation. God’s “wisdom” would lead to their being guided to a “fountain” more filling.

Those who bear the responsibility at the sanitarium should be exceedingly guarded that the amusements shall not be of a character to lower the standard of Christianity, bringing this institution down upon a level with others and weakening the power of true godliness in the minds of those who are connected with it. Worldly or theatrical entertainments are not essential for the prosperity of the sanitarium or for the health of the patients. The more they have of this kind of amusements, the less will they be pleased unless something of the kind shall be continually carried on. The mind is in a fever of unrest for something new and exciting, the very thing it ought not to have. And if these amusements are once allowed, they are expected again, and the patients lose their relish for any simple arrangement to occupy the time. But repose, rather than excitement, is what many of the patients need.  {CH 240.1}

As soon as these entertainments are introduced, the objections to theatergoing are removed from many minds, and the plea that moral and high-toned scenes are to be acted at the theater breaks down the last barrier. Those who would permit this class of amusements at the sanitarium would better be seeking wisdom from God to lead these poor, hungry, thirsting souls to the Fountain of joy and peace and happiness.  {CH 240.2}

In the Great Controversy Ellen White quoted a contemporary writer as making a connection between worldly church events paralleling the theater and the fall of Protestantism. He suggests that form and ritual abound, as a self-imposed penance of sorts, where the church is conscience stricken over its wayward ways.

Says Howard Crosby: “The church of God is today courting the world. Its members are trying to bring it down to the level of the ungodly. The ball, the theater, nude and lewd art, social luxuries with all their loose moralities, are making inroads into the sacred enclosure of the church; and as a satisfaction for all this worldliness, Christians are making a great deal of Lent and Easter and church ornamentation. It is the old trick of Satan. The Jewish church struck on that rock; the Romish church was wrecked on the same; and the Protestant is fast reaching the same doom.”  {GC88 386.3}

Imagine coming into someone’s home. Your host says, “brother, ya wanna watch a James Bond with me?” As he puts the video in the player he hesitates to push “play.” “Wait,” he says, “lets pray. Our Father in Heaven, please bless us as we watch this movie. We ask for this gift in the name of our Savior Jesus. Amen.”

The imagined scene ought to strike us with more force than in does. Something is wrong.

To those who plead for these diversions, we answer, “We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance.”  {MYP 398.2}

Thousand of youth, in Ellen’s day, had lost their value to society as potential workers for God. How had they fallen? By being exposed to the work of some “celebrated actor.” “Their imagination continues to dwell upon the scenes they have witnessed” long after the show is over.

Now and again they may realize that morally they are sinking – their DVD’s and card-games pulling them in the wrong direction. But then they remember that honored members of the church, physicians and the like, do like they and even promote such values.

Thus “they stifle conviction” and place themselves on a track where, through the internet or otherwise, they will come in contact with “that class of females ‘whose steps take hold on hell.'”

A conscientious choice to avoid all such entertainments should never be called “narrowness of mind.” Rather, it is an imitation of Jesus.

There is enough frivolity existing all around us, having a tendency to discourage serious impressions, and to put God out of the mind. Thousands of youth have bid fair to be an honor to their parents, and useful members in society, who have in an evil hour yielded to the Tempter who came in the form of a professed friend, and for the first time broke over the barrier to their conscience and attended the theater, to see and hear the performance of some celebrated actor. Everything fascinates them–their imagination is lively–their senses, their hearts, are carried away captive–they are intoxicated with excitement. They leave the theater; but their imagination continues to dwell upon the scenes they have witnessed, and they are anxious to go again, and again. They acquire a passion to witness theatrical performances. At times they may be convicted that card-playing and attending theaters are not having a beneficial influence upon their health and morals; yet they do not possess sufficient fortitude and independence to tear away from these exciting pleasures. They may strengthen themselves with the thought that physicians have not only attended theaters themselves, but have recommended others to do so, and these physicians were Christians. They thus stifle conscience with the example of worldly, pleasure-loving, professed Christians. They have learned to play cards, considering it an innocent amusement. In attending the theater they place themselves in the most dangerous company, and are exposed to the deceptive, fascinating charms of the gambler, the sensualist, and that class of females “whose steps take hold on hell.” They yield to temptation, and continue their downward course until their consciences become seared, and they will not hesitate to degrade themselves by any vice.

Christians are those who follow Christ. “Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean, and I will receive you.” Tenderness of conscience in regard to these amusements should never be called precision and narrowness of mind. How can Christians call that innocent which is a snare to the soul, which has led thousands in the road to certain ruin? I cannot believe a true follower of Christ will touch a card for amusement, nor read novels, nor attend balls and theaters. If they have learned of Him who is meek and lowly of heart, they will have disrelish for former pleasures and amusements. {RH, February 20, 1866 par. 21-22}

Anyone listening to youth speaking today will attest that their imagination continues to dwell on “scenes” from movies as described above.

Ellen White wrote an article, published in 1881, that quoted a conversation between a would-be performer and one that would persuade her to be a Christian. The personal evangelist fails and, upon asking, finds that the reason. The girl, from a home that would never countenance attendance at a theater, nevertheless received parental encouragement to take part in church theatricals. From the time she was little she began playing a part.

“‘Come to Jesus first then, and he will give you the power.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 13}

“‘I don’t want him to. I believe if I knew I should die and be lost in three weeks from tonight, I would rather be lost than give up my passion.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 14}

“‘And what is this dearly loved thing, worth so much more than your salvation?’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 15}

“‘Oh, it isn’t worth more, only I love it more, and I can’t and won’t give it up. It’s that I–I want to be an actress; I know I have the talent; I’ve always hoped the way would open for me to go upon the stage, and I can’t help hoping so still.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 16}

“‘Do you think it would be wrong for you to do so, provided the way did open?’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 17}

“‘I don’t know that it would be a sin; but I couldn’t do it and be a Christian; the two things don’t go together.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 18}

“‘How did you come by such a taste? I am sure you do not belong to a theater-going family?’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 19}

“‘Oh no! my father and mother are Methodists; they always disapproved of the theater. I’ve been in Sunday-school all my life. They used to make me sing and recite at the entertainments when I was four years old, and I acted the angel and fairy parts in the dialogues; and when I grew older, I always arranged the tableaux, charades, etc. Then I joined a set of sociables got up by our church young people. At first we did “Mrs. Jarley’s Wax-works,” and sung “Pinafore” for the benefit of the church; and then we got more ambitious, studied, and had private theatricals, and last winter we hired Mason’s Hall and gave a series of Shakespearean performances, which cleared off a large part of the church debt. But that’s only second-class work, after all. I want to do the real thing, to go upon the stage as a profession. My father won’t hear of it; but I hope some time the way will be opened that I may realize my heart’s desire.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 20}

“‘And meantime, will you not come to Jesus and be saved?”  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 21}

“‘No, I cannot do it and keep to this hope, and I will not give this up.’  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 22}

“And so the visitor turned sadly away, thinking for what miserable messes of pottage men and women are willing to sell their glorious birthright as children of God; thinking also of the seeds which are being sowed in our Sunday-schools, the tares among the wheat, and the terrible harvest that may yet spring up from this well-meant but injudicious seed-sowing.”  {RH, January 4, 1881 par. 23}

The story just quoted ought to shut the mouths of those who try to justify skits and such in church by referring to a Christmas program held seven years later. What they wrongly infer from what she wrote later they could plainly find contradicted here.

The husband of the home ought to see himself as the modern priest. To him belongs the duty of guiding his children and teaching his wife. He must ask, “Would my Master be a guest” in a living room of persons watching a show?” Would men observing the husband’s media tastes see his “good works” and glorify God accordingly?

A great responsibility rests upon the husband–house-band–to bind the household together, by the ties of kindness, love, and harmony. In the patriarchal ages, the husband and father was the priest of his own household. And still it is his duty to invoke in their behalf the divine blessing, and to instruct and guide them in the way of life. Alas that his influence should ever be exerted to lead them into folly and dissipation! When about to accompany his wife and children to the theater or the ball-room, let the professed Christian ask himself, Can I seek God’s blessing upon the scene of pleasure? Would my Master be a guest at such a place? Will angels minister to me there? Can I there let my light so shine before men, that they may be led to glorify God? Worldlings themselves look upon these amusements as inconsistent with the Christian’s profession. The following incident expresses the feeling which is entertained by many: A young lady professing to be a Christian had been gliding through the mazes of the dance, in a fashionable ball-room, when in conversation with another lady who lived only for this world, she revealed the fact that she was a member of a Christian church. “What!” exclaimed the other, “are you a Christian?” “I am,” was the answer. Whereupon she received the stinging rebuke, “Then why are you here?”  {ST, February 23, 1882 par. 9}

The statement above and the one following both bring up the issue of angelic accompaniment. The generation teaching my generation eventually mocked at their parent’s warnings that good angels would not accompany them to the theater. If such knew that their own living rooms were becoming an “enchanted ground” where “fallen spirits congregate” they might have been less talkative.

Many place themselves on the enchanted ground by frequenting scenes of amusement where fallen spirits congregate. Professing Christian, when you resort to the theater, remember that Satan is there, conducting the play as the master-actor. He is there to excite passion and glorify vice. The very atmosphere is permeated with licentiousness. Satan presides, also, at the masquerade and the dance; he throws around the card-table its bewitching power. Wherever an influence is exerted to cause men to forget their Creator, there Satan is at work, it matters not how innocent the guise under which he conceals his purpose.  {ST, May 18, 1882 par. 23}

Sins ought to be rebuked at church. But “in many churches” some sins in regard to amusement have become “fashionable. They are glossed over and excused.” Men advocating the introduction of such things into the church are treated as friends and benefactors. They should rather be viewed as sources of moral contamination.

The theater, the race-track, and questionable amusements of every kind engage the attention of multitudes. In many churches sins have become fashionable. They are glossed over and excused. The right hand of fellowship is given to the very men who bring in false theories and sentiments. Right principles are no longer cherished. The conscience has become insensible to the counsel and reproofs that have been given. Messages calling for repentance are unheeded.  {SW, March 21, 1905 par. 13}

Yet those opposing the sins of the pleasure lovers must be prepared to offer something in their place – the satisfaction of true religion.

Instead of disparaging Jacob’s well, Christ presented something better. “If thou knewest the gift of God,” he said, “and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” He turned the conversation to the treasure he had to bestow, which would satisfy the craving of mind and heart. He offered the woman something better than anything she possessed, even living water, the joy and hope of the gospel of his kingdom.  {YI, September 11, 1902 par. 2}

This is an illustration of the way in which we are to work. It is of little use for us to go to pleasure-lovers, theater-goers, drunkards, and gamblers, and scathingly rebuke them for their sins. We must offer them something better than that which they have, even “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.” We must make it as plain as possible to them that the law of God is binding upon all human beings, and that this law is a transcript of the divine character, an expression of that which the Creator wishes his children to become.  {YI, September 11, 1902 par. 3}

But what if one member alone in a family has convictions against the television, theater, etc.? Though no one else can understand, she must maintain her convictions. To sacrifice her convictions to her children or kindred, in an effort to be their friend, is to “decidedly” work “against Christ.”

My sister, you cannot have an experimental knowledge of the love of God in the soul, and the joy of true obedience to your Lord, who has bought you and your family with the price of His own blood, while you join yourself to these things. Your family do not understand as do you the reasons of the faith that leads away from all such pursuits. You can never be free in Jesus Christ and yet have a divided heart. My sister, you need now to consider that your influence in accompanying your daughters to the theater is decidedly against Christ. He declares that “he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).  {11MR 336.1}

False theology is related to the issue of watching television and movies. Men-pleasing pastors that have adopted a theory that one is “not saved by good works but by Christ and Christ alone”[1] find that the youth must have such amusements as our forbidden by the testimonies in this appendix.

Another minister seeks to please his congregation, and tells them [that] young people must have pleasure; it is no harm to go to the theater and attend parties of pleasure and to dance, for Jesus attended a wedding feast. All this is in keeping with the theory that you are not saved by good works but by Christ and Christ alone. The ministers tell the congregations they cannot keep the law; no man ever kept it or ever can keep it. What a theory! The wise and good God presents to His people a law that is to govern their actions which it is impossible for them to observe! What a character to give our heavenly Father, who so loved man that in order to save him He did not withhold His only Son, but gave Him up for us all! How much more, says the inspired apostle, will He not with Him freely give us all things?  {21MR 243.1}

Disclaimer:  This is not a balanced paper. That is because it is a short paper. It is not possible to be balanced and accurate and brief at the same time. Since something has to go, I have chosen to let it be balance. So this paper does not well explain the gospel. It does not adequately lift up the cross as the only reason to dress well. In it I do not take significant pangs to show that dress is not to be the big issue in life. Nor do I address the jewelry issue. Yes, you read that correctly.

Disclaimer continued: This paper does not pretend to exhaust the arguments. Nor does it well represent the other sides of the issues that it discusses. Nor does it make the important point that pride, selfishness, and a critical spirit are more harmful than poor dress. Which means that there are people that dress not best and are most precious for their sweetness. Nor does the paper present itself as the final authority on the issues. Nor have I, as the author, tried much to show how dearly and truly I appreciate many of my fellow-workers who may not (yet?) see these issues as I. Nor am I as certain that I am correct on these issues as I am sure that I am right on whether or not we should keep the Ten Commandments.

So now maybe you don’t want to read the paper since it does not say any of the things a good and balanced paper on dress ought to say.[1] But I am not done with my disclaimer.

Disclaimer continued: This paper is written in a colloquial style. Every sentence of it excepting that funny sentence just before this one that used the word “colloquial.” So the grammar should be perfectly accurate for conversational English. This is intended to ease the feelings of tension that tend to fill with hot air and start rising when the issue of dress is touched. If you do not understand how dress could be a hot issue without discussing jewelry, then you should probably not read any further. This paper assumes that you think wearing jewelry is not best or appropriate for Christians living in the time of the judgment. So this paper is written for a very few people. If you want to copy or distribute it, please do so only with the disclaimer attached. This paper does not offer much evidence or proof for ideas that will be readily believed by anyone that has done a few hours of study in the Testimonies on this topic. (i.e. This paper does not work to prove that our clothes should be clean.)

Disclaimer concluded.

So what is this paper intending to do? To present ideas and thoughts perhaps not yet thought of by the reader. And what is the goal? To bring members of Christ’s church more into line with dress that would be pleasing to Him.

Dangers:  It is entirely likely that you already have your mind made up on this subject. That is dangerous on any topic at any time. Critical thinking, well done, is to follow the thoughts of the presenter, refusing to make a conclusion while significant data has not yet been evaluated. It is, in the same vein, to rethink conclusions that were made before the data was in.

Critical thinking is ill done when it refuses to consider new data on the basis of a previously-made conclusion. (Disclaimer: This paper is not a balanced presentation on critical thinking.)

Now the paper is half done and I will get to my point.

God has presented several ideals to His children regarding dress. Our dress is to be:

Neat (and in this sense, attractive)

Clean

Durable

Healthy

Modest (not revealing)

Modest (not strange)

Feminine or masculine

On the last point, there is the familiar verse:[2]

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. De. 22:5

And the somewhat less familiar paragraph:[3]

[Some ladies][4] will imitate the opposite sex, as nearly as possible. They will wear the cap, pants, vest, coat, and boots, the last of which is the most sensible part of the costume. Those who adopt and advocate this style of dress, are carrying the so-called dress reform to very objectionable lengths. Confusion will be the result. Some who adopt this costume may be correct in their views in general upon the health question, and they could be instrumental in accomplishing vastly more good if they did not carry the matter of dress to such extremes.  {2SM 477.7}

In this style of dress God’s order has been reversed, and his special directions disregarded. Deut. xxii, 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.” This style of dress, God would not have his people adopt. It is not modest apparel, and is not at all fitting for modest, humble females who profess to be Christ’s followers. God’s prohibitions are lightly regarded by all who would advocate the doing away of the distinction of dress between males and females. The extreme positions taken by some dress-reformers upon this subject cripple their influence.  {2SM 477.8}

God designed there should be a plain distinction between male and female dress, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion, and great increase of crime. St. Paul would utter a rebuke, were he alive, and should behold females professing Godliness with this style of dress.

There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety.” 1 Timothy 2:9.  {1T 421.3}

WAIT! You aren’t done reading.

Look at the statements again. Which of the following propositions is closer in truth to the intention of the inspired young lady that wrote the testimonies?

1. “Pants on women” was a bad idea in 1880 because women at that time almost all wore dresses.
2. Women’s Pants were being advocated and this was offensive to the morals of the times
3. There was a movement to have women wear pants as part of a larger plan to have men and women dress more healthfully without regard to keeping a significant distinction between them. This was abominable.

If you answered the last question too quickly, you may have done it by feel rather than by fact. Options one and two are popular views, but are they really able to be drawn from the text? There was a prophecy attached to this testimony. There would be a significant increase in crimes (moral crimes by inference) if there was a change in dress.

Ladies, I write to you for a moment. St. Paul is not alive to utter a rebuke. But let your heart be broken for the persons who have suffered as the victims of incest, rape, and sexual abuse brought on by the breakdown in distinctions between feminine and masculine dressing.

I can not prove it to you, but I will tell you, a lady dressed modestly and femininely has an atmosphere around her of wholesomeness that represses wickedness in men. The feminine presence reminds them, by way of contrast, that they are men and not brutes. It awakens in them a longing for something that their worldy life does not offer.

So perhaps it can not be argued today that society views pants as “man’s” clothing. If the message of Deuteronomy 22:5 beckoned us to adhere to accepted norms regarding gender and dress, this would be a more significant observation. The tendency of society is to diminish the differences. In some circles, the effort is to abolish them. The message of Moses’ admonition is that God’s people should stand against these movements. Can we stand against the movements today and be consistent with ourselves while adopting the changes those movements brought into society fifty years ago?

To a second point:

Dressing similar to the world does not increase our influence with them at all.

Many dress like the world, in order to have an influence over unbelievers; but here they make a sad mistake. If they would have a true and saving influence, let them live out their profession, show their faith by their righteous works, and make the distinction plain between the Christian and the worldling. The words, the dress, the actions, should tell for God. Then a holy influence will be shed upon all around them, and even unbelievers will take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus. If any wish to have their influence tell in favor of truth, let them live out their profession and thus imitate the humble Pattern.  {CH 598.1}

I saw many traveling in this broad road who had the words written upon them: “Dead to the world. The end of all things is at hand. Be ye also ready.” They looked just like all the vain ones around them, except a shade of sadness which I noticed upon their countenances. Their conversation was just like that of the gay, thoughtless ones around them; but they would occasionally point with great satisfaction to the letters on their garments, calling for the others to have the same upon theirs. They were in the broad way, yet they professed to be of the number who were traveling the narrow way. Those around them would say: “There is no distinction between us. We are alike; we dress, and talk, and act alike.”  {1T 128.2}

Notice the worldly wisdom in the last sentence. Our dress, though a little issue in our own Christian life, may be a salvational issue of huge proportions in the lives of those who know us.

WAIT! There is something else…

I was in an airplane some years ago reading a magazine. I found an article about Calvin Klein clothing. Before that point I had not really noticed Calvin Klein items. I mean, I had seen them, but didn’t think much about them. The article explained the advertising theme of the man himself. There was a full-page add that implied incest, others highlighting child nudity, and the theme of all the CK advertisements was sex. This theme of the company is published widely. One writer indicated that you can open any magazine and find an erotic add from Klein’s marketing department. Calvin Klein himself has worked to glamorize homosexuality in his advertising.

Would Jesus wear Calvin Klein? If a trim of blue was to be a message to the world that the Jews kept the law, what do the letters CK say to the same world? My opinion…Christians should not wear items that are associated with lust. We have a different message to carry to the world.

And a final item:

Our clothing should be constructed for durability and practicality. It should be well-fitting and warm in cool weather. Does this require following fashion? Adopting a style of dress that is in keeping with our faith is good regardless of whether or not the world may wear it. But fashion is an idol and I am afraid that more people put money offerings before Molech than would admit to doing it.

The lives and teachings of Christian parents should be in marked contrast with those of unbelievers. Worldlings teach their children to love display, and to bow to the idol of fashion. They sacrifice themselves and their children upon this altar of Moloch. But Christians who profess to be seeking the heavenly Canaan, should obey the instructions of the Bible. We urge modern Israel to lay aside their ornaments, their jewels of silver and gold and precious stones, to put off their costly-apparel, and to seek for the inward adorning, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Let children be educated, not to become devotees of fashion, but to be servants of God.  {ST, May 26, 1881 par. 23}

So that is all. We want to win the world. I conclude from the data above and lots and lots more that if ladies would dress ever so wholesomely that they would be amazed at the increase in their witnessing effectiveness of men. If they would make a stand that they would not bow at the idol of fashion, they would take a step that would make it more difficult for the world to say “they dress like us, they can’t be that much different, why change?”

I didn’t address the modesty issue really at all. Maybe I will after writing another long disclaimer about being a man and writing about sensually dressed females.[5] That is an awkward activity. But as a hint in the meantime…teasing outfits (that almost reveal or make almost possible to see…) are to most men what a free cigarette is to a struggling tobacco addict. Less shear, less tight, more careful, and you would be dressing kindly. Beautiful and sensual, these are not synonyms.

Review: The changes in what society regards as clothing for females and males are arrayed against the plain statements of God. The changes have diminished the distinctions. This is the very movement forbidden by God though Moses in De. 22:5. Changing society may dictate what “pertains to a woman” but never can dictate how similar that may rightly be to what pertains to a man. In other words, the Jesus-pleasing woman may choose her “pertains to a woman” attire from among those items society labels as feminine. But she must let conscience dictate which of those “feminine” articles are the result of a societal slide towards neutrality. These are to be avoided for reasons mentioned above and to boycott the Devil’s cruel trick that is causing so much pain today in solemn immoral crimes.

Respond….let me know how you react to this paper.

The End

Appendix Only

Item:         If a hoop skirt turned sideways, revealing 20 lbs. of flannel coverings is an immodest revealing of the female form, what does that have to say about modesty? Before you answer, remember that cultured society accepted the flannel viewing as a reasonable necessity when ladies were entering and exiting passenger trains.

Item:         I do not mean to say by this paper that pants are an abomination for women. (Did I just confuse you?) It is the slackening in the difference between the sexes that is an abomination and that is defiant of the Bible rule. Indian ladies wear “pants” of sorts that are very distinct from Indian men’s clothing and can be at the same time modest and healthy. The modest Indian female outfit still has its western cultural counterpart in the most wholesomely feminine unmasculine-like clothing around…dresses.

Contact me at canvassing@canvassing.org

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What about when a lady is climbing trees?
   1. Before we get to the question, we need to get to the root of the problem that it implies. Let me illustrate with a different proposition and question. Proposition: We should not frequent taverns where strip-dancing is practiced. Question: But what about the man who evangelizes in the strip-tease taverns? Answer: Oh, that is a hard question. Reply: Why? Answer: Umm, it confuses my epistemology[6]. If a man, according to Inspiration, is not to frequent such places, then isn’t the question a way of changing the source of authority from Inspiration to experience? I mean, if God says “don’t go there” then isn’t the question “what if I go there?” a type of hardening the heart?

Now the Bible does not forbid ladies climbing trees. It does place prohibitions on some seemingly harmless activities (like eating fruit from a certain tree that looks like all the rest in the garden) on the basis of unforeseen problems. But climbing trees, if one does it carefully, appears even to me to be a harmless recreation, and in the case of Zacchaeus, even a practical solution to some problems.

In the same chapter that we first find the Ten Commandments we find another little verse that helps us with the principle we are discussing:

Ex 20:26  Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

The priests were to dress a certain way when ministering in the sanctuary. Someone might have asked “But what should they wear when they go up on steps to the altar? It wouldn’t be modest to wear their special clothing there.” That question would be backwards thinking. Forward thinking would reason like this, “Neither should they go up on steps to the altar since that would be immodest with the clothing that has been proscribed.” The first question leads logically to situational ethics where what is right is based on what is happening.

So now to the ladies in the trees. What should they wear? If indeed ladies should wear only feminine clothing, then it may be that they will need to be creative in regard to tree climbing. Maybe they could do it only when the boys are away? Or when they are wearing pants underneath? I think it has been a long time since I have seen a lady in a tree. (To get a dead cow on the altar would be a lot easier if there were only steps leading up to it. Think about that for a minute or two.) Maybe the confusion that was prophesied to come from a blurring of distinctions between men’s and women’s clothing has included a confusion on the roles that God intended women to fill in the family. If there is a tree that must be climbed, and if there are men around, is it possible that they ought to be the ones to climb it?

1. Is a woman a witch if she wears pants?
2. This is not a frequently asked question. However, it did happen once upon a time that a young female

student of mine called her mother and told her that I said that if a woman wears pants that she is a witch. In case that rumor has spread, I would like to lay it to rest. I never said that or anything related to it. It is a silly proposition at best. But furthermore, I would like to answer the unasked question behind it. That question is a FTQ (frequently thought question). “What do you think about me since you believe a lady should wear dresses and I am a lady that wears pants?”

If you are reading this, then I probably think very highly of you. I do not gather from the thought-question that you will base your conclusions upon my evaluation. But perhaps it is right that you would inquire whether or not I condemn you for not conforming to my opinions. I do not. There was a time in my life when I thought the very ideas in this paper were fanatical. I was as truly consecrated to Jesus then as now. I was growing in grace and in the knowledge of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Unless there is some other reason that I cannot, I will suppose the same about you. I appreciate your devotion and service, your warmth and efforts. I trust your judgement and respect your reason. If you read this prayerfully and conclude that I am wrong, I will not be sure that you are wrong in that conclusion, however much I may think you are.

None of these facts are reason enough to suppress a word of truth.

1. What about culottes?[7]
   1. See disclaimers above. This paper is not intended to do your thinking for you. Evaluate culottes in the light of the statements. I think they may be perfectly sensible and appropriate. If you think not, I am not sure you are wrong. If you think that I am so obviously right that the question is silly, I am not sure that you are wrong either.

1. Is this a salvational issue?
2. Why do you ask? Let us face a few facts before answering this directly. There are Bible issues that are causing a significant amount of controversy over theories. What you believe about Zechariah 14, Revelation 4, or about the identification of the daily may make you a target of others that feel differently about the same. The last sentence of the following paragraph is particularly helpful in answering the question if we understand the sentences before it.

It is often the case that the customs and climate of a country make a condition of things that would not be tolerated in another country. Changes for the better must be made, but it is not best to be abrupt. The truth received into the heart sanctifies the receiver. The power of the grace of God will do more for the soul than controversy will do in a lifetime. By the power of the truth how many things might be adjusted, and controversies hoary with age find quietude in the admission of better ways. The great, grand principle, “Peace on earth and good will to men,” will be far better practised when those who believe in Christ are labourers together with God. Then all the little things which some are ever harping upon, which are not authoritatively settled by the Word of God, will not be magnified into important matters. – Testimonies to Southern Africa, pp. 79-80.

Theories that are not authoritatively settled by the Word of God should not be magnified into important issues. But even these theories become salvational issues when controversy over them brings bitterness, dissention, alienation, and thus, a withdrawal of the Holy Spirit. You might say that it is the bitterness and dissention that are the salvational issues. Perhaps you are right. Dress can also become a salvational issue under the same circumstances. A hardening of the heart, a distancing of one’s self from one’s brethren, will have an impact on one’s relationship to God.

Dress might also be a salvational issue to those with whom we associate.

Love of truth is most certainly a salvational issue. Idolatry of dress, not a rare ailment according to the Testimonies, is also. It should be a matter of church discipline.[8]

But if you love truth above all else and want to make Jesus happy by your dress and demeanor, if you cherish love for your brethren and refuse to fall to bickering, if you resist bitter thoughts and do what ever you can to meet the needs of the dying world, you are acceptable to God and to all that are His. Even if you are a lady wearing pants. No one can be (or should want to be) conscience for you.

But if you asked the question because you do not want to seriously consider what God has said on the topic, quibbles will not avail in the judgement. Trusting God enough to believe Him is a salvational issue.

1. What about when I am swimming or riding horses or climbing mountains or repelling or working in the garden?
2. See “climbing trees” above. We would not want to reason backwards. We should keep the

seventh-day Sabbath. “But what about if I play on the NFL?” “Oh, that would never work. Muslims keep part of Friday. Maybe you should be one of them instead.” Can you see the fallacy in the question?

But regarding the working in the garden and riding horses, for most of the last 1,000 years ladies did these things a great deal. During that time they all wore dresses. During the last sixty years they have spent much less time in the garden and on the horses. Now they wear pants. Ironic, isn’t it?

1. Why do spiritual people in leadership not believe this way?
   1. Some do. Some do not. Some have been taught, some have not. But is the question implying some deviant source of authority? Leaders’ thoughts are like your thoughts. What they do not believe today they may well advocate tomorrow.

1. I don’t want to. I don’t want to. I don’t want to!
2. Oh.[9]

1. This isn’t supposed to be a big issue.[10] It is a mistake to notice people’s dress and then to evaluate their character accordingly.[11] Why then did you write this paper?
   1. God noticed these things and that is reason  enough to notice them. “We, by the law, are dead to the law.” In other words, when we become obedient, the counsel or command that we are obeying ceases to sound in our ears or to burden our consciences. Dress is to be a small matter indeed. A few hours in a lifetime will suffice to study the principles and determine a course of action that would harmonize with them. The larger issues may well absorb thousands of hours of study and mediation.

But the little issues[12] can not be well ignored while we give proper attention to the larger ones. For ourselves we know not which issue may prove to be the largest one as the Holy Spirit probes our lives for idolatry.

God leads his people on step by step. He brings them up to different points which are calculated to manifest what is in the heart. Some endure at one point, but fall off at the next. At every advanced point the heart is tested, and tried a little closer. If the professed people of God find their hearts opposed to the straight work of God, it should convince them that they have a work to do to overcome, or be spued out of the mouth of the Lord. Said the angel, “God will bring his work closer and closer to test them, and prove every one of his people.” Some are willing to receive one point, but when God brings them to another testing point, they shrink from it and stand back, because they find it strikes directly at some cherished idol. Here they have opportunity to see what is in their hearts that shuts out Jesus. They prize something higher than the truth, and their hearts are not prepared to receive Jesus. Individuals are tested and proved a length of time to see if they will sacrifice their idols, and heed the counsel of the True Witness.—2SG pp. 224-226.

1. Do you realize that I feel hurt and a little angry that you would teach these things?
2. I am sorry if you are hurt. I was nervous about writing it just because I was afraid you might be. I was worried that you might become bitter and feel that your freedoms were being taken away. If what I write is true, then those freedoms were not really freedoms. If I am wrong, oh! I do want to know it! I want to know the better way to understand these statements. Believe I am sincere in this and help me before I lay a needless burden on the backs of many. Teaching it is a burden. But if it is true (as I believe) then it is a light burden and I am happy to bear it.

1. So you are saying that there is an eleventh commandment? “Ladies don’t wear pants.”
2. No. There is a second principle. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The question is not “What may I get away with?” But “What can I wear that would be, beyond a doubt, pleasing to Jesus?” You may answer that for yourself. The statements in this paper may help you if help is what you are looking for in Inspiration.

1. Didn’t you say this was going to be a short paper?
2. Oops. I hope it was a blessing. The end.