The Doctrine of Clothing: A study of form and function.

Hello, It’s the Baptist of the group again, and I’m here to talk about the doctrine of clothing. Now, I’m not here to tell all the women reading this to stop wearing skin tight athletic clothes with an increasing amount of sheer material that continues to creep further and further up the leg with each passing year, as casual wear. Granted, you shouldn’t, but that’s not my point, and I don’t want to have my head torn off, and my body drawn and quartered by women today. All I want to cover is how form and function are connected, why we, as humans, wear clothes, and why our culture’s view of modesty continues to change. Maybe, we’ll even come to some conclusion on the issue.

 

Form and Function: Inseparable Aspects of Elements of Society

Look at our architecture of roofs as an example (note I use agricultural structures because I am an Agriculture Educator, and have studied such structures) , whether it is an A-frame, gable, shed roof, or Gothic arch, each structure has a function tied to its form. Whether it is to simply shed water, prevent collapse from snow buildup, or to be windproof, each design has a function. As an example, the German Gothic barns were designed to be windproof, as storage, housing for animals and even people, shelter for bats at the corners of the building to control the mosquito population, and they were intentionally designed to reflect old world cathedrals. This is not exclusive to farm architecture, it is seen in our art, which has come a long way from trying to represent God’s creation, to…whatever it is we have now. To be fair, I do consider (some) modern art to be genuine art solely because there has been design and some discernible technique used in its creation. However, form is directly related to function. The function of modern art, architecture, and even fashion is to progressively push what is deemed acceptable. In other words, the function is to subvert the current paradigm.

What about our clothing, though? Why does western culture clothe itself the way it does? What about other cultures that don’t conform to our views of modesty? Well, for one, western culture has the standards it does because of the pervasiveness of Christianity in culture. In other words, couture in culture is carefully curbed by Christ. Those other cultures, particularly those still living in stone or iron age conditions, often have its people going about in clothes that often do not cover what we are ashamed of in our culture. Why? Romans chapter 1 is a good start. It is a fact that humans are predisposed to sin, and with every generation, those people who find themselves in such godlessness will plunge further and further into ungodliness. The fact that we dress the way we do is because our culture has been positively affected by the scriptures. The reason our fashion is becoming less and less modest? Romans 1 again. The fact is, even though our culture has been affected by Christianity, it is still degraded by sin because 1) Christians are still sinners, redeemed, but still sinners, and 2) Not all in a culture affected by Christianity are, in fact Christians, especially those who seek political power.

Why We Clothe Ourselves: A Reminder

Why would you get on the local news if you were to stroll into a McDonald’s and strip down nude? While some would challenge the assertion because of the noetic effect of sin, it is because it is shameful to be seen naked. Why is it shameful? Cut scene to two naked vegetarians in a garden.

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

— Genesis 2:25

“6. When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
8. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9. Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10. He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.””
–Genesis 3:6-10
It wasn’t necessarily the nakedness itself that was at issue, but what it represented, following the shame of sin. To be naked is to be vulnerable, to the elements, to attack, to judgement. Nakedness is to expose oneself to these things, and as creatures we do not like being exposed to vulnerability. As sinless creatures, Adam and Eve were not in danger of these vulnerabilities, being protected from both death and judgement, so their nakedness never came to mind. As the shame of sin entered, both death and judgement became imminent. To be naked before God, the ultimate judge of all things, with a death sentence hanging over one’s head, should bring shame and fear, hence, the feeble attempt to cover their shameful naked state.
“16. To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
17. Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” 20. Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21. The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.”
–Genesis 3:16-21
Notice here 1) The curse on man, woman, and earth. Eve is cursed in childbirth and her desires are juxtaposed against the leadership of the husband. Adam is burdened by introducing a curse on the whole world- the requirement to not only work, but labor hard to achieve and maintain survival, and not only that, the ground he is supposed to work to get food from is cursed because of him. The whole of mankind and the earth itself is cursed. 2) God clothes them. Their feeble attempt to cover themselves with foliage is as our feeble attempts to cover our own sins with our own works. God made them clothing from skins. It required death to adequately cover their sin. Thus the basis of the system of sacrifice: it takes blood to cover sins, hence the issue with Cain’s insufficient sacrifice later on. Thus the need for Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice to properly atone for our sin.

In Conclusion

Our need to cover ourselves shows our need of a savior to cover our sins, and when our culture becomes more and more eroded by sin, one of the things that is eroded is our sense of modesty. The lack of modesty is mankind shaking his fist at God, saying, “There is no sin! Like the emperor with his new clothes, I am not naked! I shall not surely die!” The reason we have women going around flaunting their bodies in the most revealing athletic wear is not because it empowers women. It is because wicked men have so set up a culture in which they can visually surround themselves with the object of their lust. Face it, how many worldly men truly object to extremely revealing athletic wear worn by women? How many worldly women truly object to similar clothes worn by men?

In other words, Christian– clothing should remind you of Christ.

PUT SOME PANTS ON!

Don’t Trust Someone Who Says They Have a Perfect Understanding of Scripture (because they don’t)

DTA

A thousand apologies in advance if this post is disjointed, rambling, or otherwise incoherent. Due to a busy schedule, it has been literally months in the making.

I actually did not come up with the wording of the title of this article. It was Phil Johnson of Grace To You who said it in a radio broadcast when talking about a young man he was in correspondence with, who made this very claim. The young man said to Brother Johnson that he was writing a book about such and such, and he disagreed with him. He denied any need for correction and rejected it when offered to him. After all, he did say he has a perfect understanding of Scripture. I say he was writing about such and such because I can’t quite remember what Brother Johnson said it was about, but apparently, he was blatantly wrong, and not only that, he was trying to publish how wrong he was on this certain doctrine to the entire world. He was (and it is assumed, still is) wrong at the top of his lungs. I suppose a good alternate title for this article could be– “An Exhortation to Humility in Interpreting and discussing Scripture”

First: Two Extremes

Before the exhortation should come some context would be helpful. There are two extremes, or ditches, one can fall into as it relates to scripture interpretation. Both are ungodly and worldly. One is to be so very theologically or interperetively “humble” that you are squishy. The other is to be so very dogmatic that you are right, and there is no possibility you could be wrong, so hang any counsel from anyone else, especially if they are in disagreement. To say they are ditches or extremes, though makes it sound as if the correct view is somewhere in between.

It is, and it isn’t. Practically, the correct view is between the soft and hard view. However, there is no in between when it is pride and a false humility, which is also pride. Both are the same sin. In practice, it isn’t the road in between. It is a different road entirely.

The Theological and Doctrinal Jelly Sack

The “soft” approach, or false humility, is perhaps the worse of these two approaches to treating scripture, and subsequently, theology and doctrine. I say it is the worse of the two because it is the most disingenuous of the two. It purports humility, but practically is very proud.

This approach is often utilized by theological liberals and socinians. Since liberals are supposed to be the “nice guys,” it is necessary that in exercising pride, they be as deceptive as possible. The fact of the matter is that all humans are savage beasts, whether conservative or liberal. However, this deceptive approach baits people in by sounding very nice and open to everything, while espousing dangerous teachings and their teachers who are either hirelings or, worse yet, ravenous wolves. They believe abandoning standards communicated clearly in scripture is actually the biblical standard. They believe that since they are following the spirit of Jesus’ ministry, the actual words of Christ Himself doesn’t really matter. Besides, scripture was written by men, and is not as reliable as “personal revelation.” Such is the case when covenants and confessions and creeds are abandoned in the name of “diversity.”

I say hang their notion of diversity. We need unity.

The Theological and Doctrinal Fence Post

The “hard” approach, much like a brick or stone wall, is like a fence post (fence posts cannot be convinced of much).  I only use this term because in the self aggrandizing minds of these folks, brick and stone walls may connote unmoving strength, so let’s call them fence posts. They aren’t just any fence post though, lest they think they’re being compared to a good, strong corner post, used to stretch a six strand barbed wire fence. They are rotton wooden posts that aren’t even good for holding up any wire. They are utterly worthless, they stand alone, and if you argue with one, you won’t get anywhere at all.

This kind is so proud, they don’t even make an attempt at hiding their pride behind a lie. They openly and adamantly reject anyone offering a different insight than their own, especially if someone is biblically seeking to correct them in one of their faults.

These are the people who would claim perfect understanding of scripture, or at least claim the capability to potentially gain a perfect understanding in this life. They can argue using Scripture, though only by accepting the verses they can agree with, while wrenching verses out of context they find impossible to reconcile with their flawed views. Oddly enough, these might also abandon covenants, confessions, and creeds. Some are apt to write their own doctrinal statement, rejecting a biblical confession belonging to their own church, association, or denomination. I’m not knocking writing a confession of one’s own, that’s how they were done in the past, either by writing a confession as a new ministry or group of churches, as a person in bonds of persecution answering accusers, or as a summary or clarification of  a previous confession.  If you’re working with something that is already good, though, why change it? These confessions help us to submit to the authority of our church and to the authority of scripture, not of our vain minds. Ideally, they should eliminate pride in oneself.

And Now, the Feature Presentation.

“1LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. 2Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. 3Let Israel hope in the LORD from henceforth and for ever.” Psalm 131

To begin, perhaps a bit of context is nessecary. This psalm is one of a series of psalms called psalms of ascent, or psalms of degrees. People. They were sang by pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the feasts, or by the worshippers and priests on their way up the steps of the temple. Considering the length of each psalm in the group, they were also likely psalms taught to children at home, or as devotions for such events as approaching Jerusalem and the Temple.

This psalm in particular focuses on child-likeness (not childishness), and teaches a very important attitude to have before God and man. It is a statement of child like humility. It instills this attitude in children who are learning these psalms. It is a proclamation to those taking their families to Jerusalem for the feast. Perhaps more importantly, for the men in the priesthood, it showed them the same as they approached the temple.

We are told likewise elsewhere in scripture, to be meek like children. This meekness surely doesn’t include a high opinion of oneself. In fact, I believe that you’ll find some of the highest level theologians never really consider themselves masters, but always students of the scriptures.

I, in no way, want to be the one to wear a badge labeled “Mr. Humble,” so I’ll just say I know a guy who can wear that badge and I try to be like him. There are issues that are clear in scripture that are fundamental to the Christian Faith, which only heretics deny. There are also things like baptism and eschatology that are also clear, which have no bearing on salvation. I suggest these things are important, and would affect which church I’m a member of, but it’s okay if a Presbyterian is wrong on this, or if the non-denominational (Baptist crossed with Assemblies of God) is wrong on that. What is important is that we agree on the basic doctrines that make Christianity what it is, whether you’re a Calvinist, Arminian, or Molinist.

To Conclude…

When it comes to doctrinal issues, many of us are either very proud, very ignorant, or both. We are proud because, “I’m me, and I don’t believe anything that is wrong! There’s no amount of exegesis that will persuade me of this biblical truth. I’ll misquote and take as much scripture out of context as I please! I’m right, and if we differ, then you have your place with the devil!”

Otherwise, we are ignorant, which I believe is a majority of Christians who say, “Well, it has to be true- my granny, or my dad, or brother whistle britches believes that way! Surely they can’t be wrong, and if you quote that verse one more time, you’ll insult my dead grandparents’ faith, and I’ll rip your throat out. But hey! Let’s just agree to disagree!”

Of course, there’s the ignorant who are proud of it who say, “It doesn’t really matter what the Bible says about that. We are on the right side of history here, and this is how we attract people to our movement. Now, how ‘bout a Fortnite tournament and some pizza to help you forget your serious doctrinal question. Have this album from Bethel or Hillsong United!”

 

Who is This Fellow? Is he an Arch-heretic? Let’s Hope Not…

Hello there, reader of Late Night Theology. I’m a new contributor here on this blog, and I’m grateful for any time taken by you to not only read this blog, but any tedious, meandering drivel I manage to produce for it. My prayer is that our Lord will open the foolish, sinful mind of this, the author whose article you are reading, and fill it with wisdom from above. May this writer pen (or type) the truth, unsullied by the falsehoods of uninformed teaching.

To be upfront and honest with you, my reader, I find it necessary to disclose a few things which, if found out after more than a couple readings of any future work, might shock you, and even cause you to have a bad taste in your mouth, fall ill, or find yourself in any number of stress related medical emergencies. Such emergencies may include, but are not limited to, toxic shock, gastrointestinal distress, hemorrhage, bursitus, or clinical depression.

  1. I am a Baptist
  2. I won’t agree with all of what the other contributors write (and they won’t always agree with what I write). 
  3. I’m not here to fight the culture. I’m here for the sake of the gospel. 

 

I am a Baptist.

Yes, I am a Baptist. (Insert gasp, spit-take, primal shriek etc. here) I am a member of a local church in the Baptist Missionary Association, thereby making me one of those types of Baptists known as “Missionary Baptist”. The local church I attend has adopted the BMAA Doctrinal Statement as well as the 1833 New Hampshire Confession, for guidance in interpreting the Bible, which we believe to be God’s only revealed word to His people.

To answer a few questions, yes, I believe in calling them ordinances. I’m not fond of baptismal regeneration doctrine. I believe in dunking folks (so long as they’re saved). I believe the principle of closed Communion. I think it’s weird and very romish to call it “Eucharist,” but I won’t give you a weird look for more than a few seconds should you call it that. No, I’m not an Armenian, but I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist either. No, I’m not a Molinist. Yes, I’m aware of the organizational tie of the SBC, ABA, and BMA to the English reformation. Yes, I believe doctrines held by Baptists existed pre-reformation, but I don’t subscribe in whole to the landmarkist “Trail of Blood” line of thought. No, I’m still not a Calvinist. I jest in saying so, but where I’d consider myself mildly covenantal, I’d say my Presbyterian brethren are wildly covenantal. I believe in the Five Solas.

Conflict With the Brethren (and sister…en?)

Since I’m in a different denomination than the other contributors on Late Night Theology, conflict is sure to arise. I shall make a concerted effort to avoid such conflict, by focusing on the things I believe I have in common with my fellow contributors, unless prompted by the group to express views that could be considered uniquely “Baptist”. By focusing on what makes us different to an unhealthy extent, all we accomplish is division.

Where shall we then unite? Upon which hill shall we die? Despite disagreement on secondary and tertiary issues, may all the contributors continue in grace and love on this site.

Focus: The Gospel

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

– Ephesians 2:8&9

One thing I hope all here have in common is the doctrine of justification, that we are saved from wrath by grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone, as revealed to us in the scriptures, for the glory of God alone.

It should also be known here, that not one of my articles will be geared to fighting or changing the culture. The apostles didn’t go about, decrying the society in which our God had placed them, calling for social change either from the conservative side, crying out for the false godliness of a nominal patriotism, nor from the liberal side, crying out in favor of the idol worship of social justice. They preached the gospel, planted churches, and discipled men to lead churches and plant more churches. Forcing the culture to follow our warped, godless sense of godliness was never the scriptural model for Christianity, and I won’t personally be a party to it here or anywhere else. Voting one way or the other never saved any person’s soul, but hearing the gospel faithfully taught from God’s word, and repenting before God, putting on faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ sure did, continues to do so, and shall continue, should Christ tarry in bringing that great day of judgement.

 

Dearest reader, I believe that is all I am able to produce for you at the moment. I hope that despite the meager effort on my part in this pitiful introductory article, something was gained in the reading of it. I look forward to the joys and discomforts of writing for your internet literary consumption, and I hope you take as much enjoyment in reading as I do writing. May you never experience the same discomforts, though.