A Failure to Stay the Course [Handbook changes at BJU]

There are 119 Comments

AndyE's picture

I’ve been telling myself not to say anything on this thread, but I feel like I ought to say something.

Regarding the dining common, my Mom and Dad met as host and hostess at a dining common table rotation. My Dad, who just passed away last month, loved to tell that story. What Don says about this unusual practice is true – it was a great way to meet and learn how to talk to new people.  I’m sad to see this part of my BJU experience lost for my son, who is a student there now.

When I talk with my son about aspects of the BJU culture that were in place in my day but not his – guys wearing ties in the morning and off campus, required family-style dinners, getting permission or signing out to go off campus, light bell, vespers, and the like --- he’s happy with how it is now.  I still think he’s missing out on what I got.

These new dress standards, though, for people like me who think the Bible does address issues of modesty and distinctions in male/female dress, these are harder to take.  BJU has always taken a more conservative stand on these issues and I appreciated it.  I think I mentioned this on SI last year when similar issues were raised, how that I was surprised and disappointed that the girls volleyball team wore outfits that were not in line with the BJU’s stated standards. So now to fix that they change the standard, to something less modest? It’s just disappointing.  Other than music now, what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities?  Nice facilities? 

Look, I get it – the majority of BJU’s constituency has probably moved away from where BJU used to be.  People think that talking about hemlines and dress is stupid. It would be so much easier to get on that bandwagon. My conscience just doesn’t afford me that option.

Jay's picture

AndyE, you said:

These new dress standards, though, for people like me who think the Bible does address issues of modesty and distinctions in male/female dress, these are harder to take.  BJU has always taken a more conservative stand on these issues and I appreciated it.  I think I mentioned this on SI last year when similar issues were raised, how that I was surprised and disappointed that the girls volleyball team wore outfits that were not in line with the BJU’s stated standards.

In what way do these new dress standards violate Biblical prescriptions regarding modesty and distinctions in dress?  I'm puzzled by what you said here, especially since women's pants are cut differently from men's and several people here have commented that finding knee-length shorts for their daughters has become nearly impossible.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Larry Nelson's picture

Welcome Week 2017:

https://www.bju.edu/media/photo.php?gallery=418

--------------------------------------

So I have to admit that when I first saw this slideshow of photos from last Fall's Welcome Week I was startled.  Picture after picture of BJU female students wearing blue jeans on campus came as a surprise to me.  Not that I was personally offended by it---I'm not.  But the last time I was on the campus (many years ago) that would have been unheard of.  I think it would have resulted in expulsion.

Looking at the photos, I was thinking that if I didn't already know their origin I'd be hard-pressed to tell if I was looking at photos of BJU, Liberty University, or (locally here in Minneapolis) Bethel University students.

Understand, I'm not saying that's bad, but of course some here are.   

Craig Toliver's picture

AndyE wrote:
... what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities? 

<snark>Empty dorm rooms</snark>

Hence the need for change!

"a living dog is better than a dead lion" Ecclesiastes 9:4

JBL's picture

Steve Pettit is positioning BJU for the next fifty  years, and those next fifty years will look different from the previous ninety.  My prediction is, and has been that BJU will align more with CE than whatever moniker it has been associated with in the past.

Institutional change is hard, and best done slowly.  The culture and direction of the University cannot be changed overnight, and so the observation made by many on this forum regarding its slow drift is accurate.  More to the point, it is being done purposefully.

Regarding the dress issue, there are several reasons why maintaining the old policy was unsustainable.

1)  BJU is now accredited, and it has to draw its faculty from approved credentialing institutions.  Do any of those schools remotely adhere to the old guard standards?  I can't think of one.  The next generation of faculty - those in seminary or doctoral programs now, and the current assistant professors on staff - will to a large degree not have the stricter dress convictions.  Even if they give lip service to them, their position will show up in how they or their spouses dress around town, and how they defend the policy when asked by students why a certain length short is not pleasing to the Lord.

2)  Along that same line, very few people under age 40 are going to be excited about policing knee length hemlines or skirt/pants.  That generation didn't grow up in the era when that battle was bitterly fought.

3)  In the old day, believers really had just two or three human sources of Biblical authority - church, home, and school.  Theology, interpretation, and application could be closely controlled.  Clearly, those days are gone, as the access to ideas is now exponentially increased.  Yes, heresy is more easily stumbled across, but also sound biblical hermeneutics and application.  Believers of any serious persuasion are reading, and can find acceptable rebuttals to biblically unsound arguments.

4) Cultural standards will change.  Regarding change, my opinion is that the gravest mistake Christian educators and leaders can make is to stick a post in the ground and mandate that anything to the right is safe and Godly and anything to the left is worldly.  I strongly believe that each generation has to examine scripture and make that determination for themselves.  Only this process builds true conviction and purposeful holiness.

One further note... My family just visited a Mennonite church, and we absolutely loved the service.  We loved the purposeful teaching, the lack of focus on entertainment, and the friendliness of the congregants.  All the ladies wore bonnets and dresses, and the men wore in black pants/white shirts.  We could see ourselves in such a ministry.  But our primary concern was, if we got involved in evangelical ministries in this church, what would we be converting the people to - Christianity, or Mennonitism?  There is a gospel issue at the heart of culturally regimented Christian denominations, and that is if the distinction between Christ and the cultural standard becomes too indistinct, the gospel is lost - completely.

John B. Lee

ejohansen's picture

JBL just said it best in the previous post. "What would be be converting people to - Christianity or" fundamentalism?

One thing of note in this entire tread of 96 posts - not one woman has responded.  Maybe some of you should consult the women and potential women BJU students to find out just how hard it is to shop for, and find, the clothes YOU want them to wear.  

AndyE's picture

Jay wrote:

In what way do these new dress standards violate Biblical prescriptions regarding modesty and distinctions in dress?  I'm puzzled by what you said here, especially since women's pants are cut differently from men's and several people here have commented that finding knee-length shorts for their daughters has become nearly impossible.

First, knee-length garments are not nearly impossible to find.  I have daughters and we go shopping. Sure, today's female fashions are geared toward immodesty  but that doesn't mean you can't find modest outfits if you try.  But even if that were the case, how would that invalidate a Biblical principle? Also, I'm well-aware of the counter-arguments to maintaining a more overt distinction between male and female dress.  All I'll say is that the "cut" doesn't seem like much of a distinction to me, and so I haven't been able to use that argument to move my conscience on this issue.

Ron Bean's picture

JBL said:

Regarding change, my opinion is that the gravest mistake Christian educators and leaders can make is to stick a post in the ground and mandate that anything to the right is safe and Godly and anything to the left is worldly.

This the references to Proverbs 22:28 that imply that this verse is referring to certain clothing standards that are not to be moved.

In my long life I've seen former "worldly" practices now tolerated and practiced by my conservative brethren. I remember when any movie/film including Snow White and Cinderella and other Disney features were worldly. I remember when shopping in grocery stores that sold liquor was wrong. And then there was facial hair on men, television (especially on Sunday), card games with the "sinful" cards (Rook and UNO were OK), board games with dice, and open-toed shoes on women. 

We all change but the Word of God never changes.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Bert Perry's picture

Craig Toliver wrote:

 

AndyE wrote:

... what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities? 

 

<snark>Empty dorm rooms</snark>

Hence the need for change!

"a living dog is better than a dead lion" Ecclesiastes 9:4

If only empty dorm rooms set BJU apart from other Christian colleges.....as far as I can tell, the only thing keeping a lot of those rooms filled at surviving schools is that their former rival schools have closed.  #WayOffTopic, of course.

Back on topic, it's my hope and prayer, again, that BJU becomes distinguished for what it should be famous for; standing for the Word of God even when that isn't popular.  Also, the door is open for those who endorse the old clothing standards to demonstrate that they are, indeed, Biblical.  I'm not yet persuaded, but if someone's got an argument that's not slippery slope/guilt by association and otherwise Scripture-free, I'm open to it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

John E.'s picture

While this is my personal preference, I think it's a travesty that the school allows students access to things like emails and text messages. Gone are the glory days of waiting each evening for a note to arrive through the note-system. While, as stated, my personal preference, it does point to the shift in culture at the school that, while admittedly simply my preference, was incredibly important to keeping the school moored to its separatist, fundamentalist heritage. It's not that I believe emails and text messages to be inherently wrong and handwritten notes to be better, it's that I'm troubled that BJU doesn't adhere to each of my non-Biblically required personal preferences. It's time for graduates and almost-graduates to rise up and reclaim BJU for what it once was. Never mind that in doing so the school will close in a few years due to lack of students since that "tribe" of fundamentalism really doesn't exist anymore, it's the principle of adhering to non-Biblically required personal preferences that's important. Petimus credimus for life.     

Mike Harding's picture

I am in a position to know the heart and intentions of the board of trustees and the administration.  It is not the intention of BJU to fundamentally change.  They have every desire to remain a conservative, center-right, fundamental, separatist institution.  Adding intercollegiate sports has been good for BJU; however, it has created some new challenges.  We endeavor to solve those problems principally and ethically. 

We are different than the culture around us; however, we have no desire to be Amish.  The world is constantly shifting.  If there is no adjustment culturally on our part, we will appear to be not only odd, but cultish.  This struggle never ceases because the world is always in a state of flux.  I will have about 25 students at BJU this year who have previously attended our Christian school (Bethany).  Our students are very conservative culturally.  I can say that our students are enjoying their experience at BJU better now than ever before.  I encourage them to join one of the excellent churches in the Greenville area and be involved. 

I have not agreed with every change or every decision made by the administration; but I have never doubted their intention or direction.  One has to make very difficult decisions when in leadership, and you will never make everyone happy.  I believe that BJU is more theologically sound today than ever before.  I believe the chapel and Bible conference platforms have been strengthened.  These are the major things.  Their education today is better now than ever before.  It is still the number one school I recommend.  I have numerous degrees from other fine Christian institutions; yet, overall I think BJU is doing the best job. 

I invite all my conservative friends to communicate with the administration about your concerns.  I don't, however, appreciate what Travis has done.  I don't question his motives, but I do question his method of publicly and imprecisely launching attacks against BJU.  He would do better to call, write, visit, and make his case.  He would actually have more influence that way.  This is a very important time in the school's historical development.  Get involved and make your influence known, but do so in a fashion that is building not destroying.

Pastor Mike Harding

mmartin's picture

Discussions like this are inevitable as an organization works its way through change.  As JBL said, "Institutional change is hard and best done slowly."  ((cough!) Did you catch that NIU??)

As I think about this discussion from a high level and talking to no one in particular. . . . Bear with me in my ramblings. 

1. These conversations do have their benefit, because it helps us (& in this case BJU) think through what we believe, why we believe it, and helps to answer if changing is appropriate or not given an organization's Biblical beliefs, culture, & heritage.  The fact of the matter is that both sides would be wise to listen to each other - because, at least to some degree, we need and should not ignore each other.

1. The folks that are skeptical about this change:  What are they basing their thoughts and feelings upon?  Are these concerns Biblically based or of a historical and cultural heritage nature (i.e. family meals at the dining common)?  If they are regarding the historical and not necessarily Biblical, are those thoughts being communicated as such?  If BJU has changed many times in many ways in its history (i.e. men coats & ties to dinner then vs. no ties now), why are those changes not brought-up - or, not "bad,", but these new changes are?  

2.  The folks that are happy for these changes:  How are those thoughts being communicated?  Didn't many of those on the other side come before us in the faith and through whose toil and treasure build the organization being discussed?  Is the support for those changes flaunted about disrespectfully or with appropriate consideration for others?  Isn't the "With all these changes, what now makes BJU unique" a valid question? 

Take it.  Leave it.  Whatever.

Jay's picture

But even if that were the case, how would that invalidate a Biblical principle? Also, I'm well-aware of the counter-arguments to maintaining a more overt distinction between male and female dress.  All I'll say is that the "cut" doesn't seem like much of a distinction to me, and so I haven't been able to use that argument to move my conscience on this issue.

What's the Biblical principle, Andy?  Other than the Levitical admonition not to wear clothing that pertains to a man?  Some of the women's apparel in the BJU photos is far more modest that I see elsewhere (likely including women at other Christian colleges).  It's certainly far more modest than anything I'd see on the streets of NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia or even, for that matter, Greenville.

And just as a quick reminder - women are not responsible to dress modestly in order to protect men from their own lusts.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jim's picture

  • Black people were allowed even before my time ('67-71) when even BJU wouldn't let 'em in!
  • It was a free speech zone for radicals, heretics and EVEN Christians!
  • I received an accredited education (the later enabled me to enroll in Seminary)
  • I graduated debt free
  • I was saved there ... and discipled there (by an evangelical Lutheran who met with me daily!) And ... I became a Baptist!
  • No one told me how to dress but somehow without the school being loco parentis, I managed to give up drinking (which was legal then [3.2 beer] at age 18) and dress conservatively
  • And upon graduation was immediately able to get a job
AndyE's picture

Jay wrote:

What's the Biblical principle, Andy?  Other than the Levitical admonition not to wear clothing that pertains to a man?  Some of the women's apparel in the BJU photos is far more modest that I see elsewhere (likely including women at other Christian colleges).  It's certainly far more modest than anything I'd see on the streets of NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia or even, for that matter, Greenville.

And just as a quick reminder - women are not responsible to dress modestly in order to protect men from their own lusts.

If you are interested in where I'm coming from, these sermons on modesty might help.  Scripturally Defined Modesty 

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

I suspect some of the heartache boils down the fact that people retain a nostalgia for the institutions that played formative roles in their adult lives. An undergrad institution can do that to a person. Some people can look beyond that nostalgia and welcome good change. Others cannot. This doesn't characterize everyone who opposes changes at BJU and other institutions, but I suspect it accounts for a notable proportion of the incessant criticisms.

For the record, this is the organization that played a formative role in my own life:

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

BryanBice's picture

AndyE

Rather than expect someone with a moderate interest in the subject to wade through a couple hours of sermon audios, it might be more profitable to all if you could simply summarize your main ideas, perhaps using Jim's bullet point approach. 

Jim's picture

Fundamentalism has a Christian-College-Centric view:

  • We gave up on the public college! (See Larry Nelson's article)
  • Going to a Christian college is very important - VERY VERY IMPORTANT
  • The view: "as go the colleges (the Christian-college) as goes fundamentalism"
  • Hence:
    • Who speaks at - shares the platform - is very significant
    • The "standards" of the schools are important because the grads bring those standards back to the churches
    • Fundy "taboos" too! 

This image represents that view:

Joeb's picture

My Brother in Law  just visited the ABC’S campus about a month ago. Their dress code is Suit and Tie for the guys and Dresses for the Gals.  A fully accredited College to my knowledge and they have no problem getting students.  

They also have a very prosperous Christian Camp they run. Don’t seem to have money problems or struggles attracting students. They must be doing something right. Also a lot of there Profs got there M Divs at Grace Seminary. which contributes to a balanced faculty  

In my mind that’s proof that a strict dress code does not hinder recruitment if the Dress Code is presented as being professional and taking pride in the school instead of being for the moral protection of the students. The students are adults and just needed to be treated that way.  So maybe BJU just needs to change their attitude instead of the dress code.  

Jay's picture

Rather than expect someone with a moderate interest in the subject to wade through a couple hours of sermon audios, it might be more profitable to all if you could simply summarize your main ideas, perhaps using Jim's bullet point approach. 

What I'm about to say may be interpreted as a shot at Andy E, but it isn't intended to be.

It has been my experience that whenever you need to read / listen to several hours preaching or teaching to learn, articulate, and defend a Biblical principle, something is wrong.  Biblical principles should not need massive amounts of explanation.  They should be something that anyone who is a believer should be able to read, understand, and articulate during the course of their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk.  That's why I find Andy's question puzzling.

Take the Trinity - it's a hard concept that we cannot possibly hope to fathom this side of glory.  But it shouldn't take a believer even one hour to figure that out.  If they reject that teaching, that's one thing.  But not being able to understand it?  I don't think that God has 'hidden' or 'buried' truly Biblical principles down in the depths for us to have to find and follow.  God's commands are pretty clear - so clear, as one man said, that even a ploughboy would be able to read and understand them.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bert Perry's picture

When I looked up pictures of BJU in the 1920s, what I saw was that the women were wearing tea length skirts.  The picture does not serve to suggest whether the woman there is wearing a corset or the newly invented brassiere (often a glimpse of the silhouette will make that clear), but she is wearing a hat characteristic of the 1920s instead of the exuberant plumage (and full length skirts) of the Victorian era.  In the picture from the 1930s, the clothing is also quite contemporary.  Not cutting edge, not revolutionary or edgy, just what ordinary people in even liberal churches were wearing at the time.

Not quite sure that the preoccupation with attire is new, or whether the mean was closer to what BJU considered acceptable, but for reference.

One other note; Andy's link does have links to outlines.  I read them, not having the time to listen, and I'm simply not convinced that the evidence presented there leads to his conclusion.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Bert Perry wrote:

One other note; Andy's link does have links to outlines.  I read them, not having the time to listen, and I'm simply not convinced that the evidence presented there leads to his conclusion.  

I looked over the outlines as well, and, while not having scrutinized every word, they generally look sound.  However, similar to what Bert said, I find that there is not enough there to e.g. argue that showing/hiding an additional 2" at the knee is something we can say would be indicative of not understanding or obeying the scriptural principles involved.

I will say that I lean in Andy's direction, and find that modesty is not really considered and understood enough in our "Christian" culture, let alone the world around us.  I don't, however, think that BJU's recent changes in this area are ones that all Christians should necessarily find concerning.  The trick will be to determine what the school's philosophy and attitude toward modesty are over time.  If the changes are simply practical, or have something to do with styles being different from in past years, but still could be considered in alignment with the scriptural principles (and I realize that this is a judgment call), then I wouldn't be concerned.  There could be changes made that fall outside this.  The problem, of course, is that outside something obvious, determining this will always be like the standard of the Supreme Court justice (can't think of his name at the moment) -- "I know it when I see it."

As others have said, though, meeting the standards is not really an issue for those who want to be there, even if they are a little strange.  It's not like the students will be there forever, and even if they are a little strict, it certainly won't kill them.  No matter what standards they pick, someone will disagree, so I think they just need to do as they are doing -- consult a "multitude of counselors" from their constituent leadership, make a standard, and just go with it, without worrying that they can't please everyone.

Dave Barnhart

Joeb's picture

dvbii hit the sweet spot.  Change the attitude not the dress code.  Maybe have Fridays as dress down day ie jeans etc.  BJU is complicating it.  BJU got into trouble in the first place with having the wrong attitude.  

Don’t give up a strong point just to attract students. Change the attitude and focus on selling the high quality academics that BJU has.  There is no question in Christian Circles that BJU probably has the best academics of any Christian Colleges in my opinion. I paid tuition for two of my kids to go to Gordon which I’m guessing is more expensive then BJU and I was not that impressed with Gordon’s academics.  Good but not award winning like BJU.  

Ron Bean's picture

I'm not seeing any proof to the claim that BJU is changing in an attempt to attract students. I can see why some might make that assumption but you know what they say about what happens when we "assume". 

 

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Larry's picture

Moderator

Biblical principles should not need massive amounts of explanation.  They should be something that anyone who is a believer should be able to read, understand, and articulate during the course of their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk.  That's why I find Andy's question puzzling.

One could completely agree with this and be mystified by why Andy's point is even questionable. It shouldn't need massive amounts of explanation and yet it does because people are unlearned, they say. It is something that even unbelievers have accepted throughout history, they say. It is something that is common sense, they say. And their point is not without merit. It is, to me, a strange thing that people deny that women have a duty to love their brothers by caring about the way they dress. Or denying that skirt length is a factor in modesty. Even Mark Driscoll preached about that. That's it is being disputed is a mindboggler, wherever we might draw the line.

But I do find it odd that you claim that these biblical principles should be understood and articulated by their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk. The Bible seems to differ on at least two fronts. First, God appointed teachers to teach, at least in part, perhaps because some biblical teachings might not be immediately clear without it. Second, the Bible makes clear that there are levels of spiritual knowledge and maturity (hence the need for teachers and the warning about being untaught). Which means that not all is able to be understood and articulated "at any point." A younger Christian may not be able to explain something an older or more well taught Christian can explain. And someone may be able to articulate a view without being able to give a full defense of it.

 

DLCreed's picture

Joeb wrote:

My Brother in Law  just visited the ABC’S campus about a month ago. Their dress code is Suit and Tie for the guys and Dresses for the Gals.  A fully accredited College to my knowledge and they have no problem getting students.  

They also have a very prosperous Christian Camp they run. Don’t seem to have money problems or struggles attracting students. They must be doing something right. Also a lot of there Profs got there M Divs at Grace Seminary. which contributes to a balanced faculty  

In my mind that’s proof that a strict dress code does not hinder recruitment if the Dress Code is presented as being professional and taking pride in the school instead of being for the moral protection of the students. The students are adults and just needed to be treated that way.  So maybe BJU just needs to change their attitude instead of the dress code.  

I served on ABC's Board for several years....several corrections to the bove.

1. They are not regionally accreditted.

2. They are a very small regional school.

3. At the time, many of the professors/administrators raised financial support like missionaries -- and finances were extremely tight.

4. They are a Bible college -- not a liberal arts college -- therefore, the type of student that goes there is quite different than at a LA school.

5. They have a wonderful camp...to describe it as 'prosperous' might be an overstatement, however.

6. Their President, a truly gracious and godly man, has done a great job of fostering relationships that have provided support.  He lives extremely modestly himself.  He is a careful steward of resources and a creative innovator of fund-raising and capital projects.

7. Their dress code is conservative, but not quite a narrow as the description above might lead one to believe.

8. I love the President and many of the people at ABC and they are considerably "right" of me on multiple areas.  They have a gracious reserve in their positions that I respect and nothing I wrote above should be construed as a criticism -- just a statement of facts as I know them.

ronharrisonjr's picture

I canNOT believe that in 2019, I am reading that changes in a school's dress code, which has neither theology nor Scripture to support it but is, instead, a set of human rules that were written for structure and order, are still considered straying from any moorings or Biblical standard! Certainly motivation is important to consider, but what is the motivation of those who insist these rules are litmus tests of one's spirituality or fidelity to God and his word? Is it fear? (What about shunning a spirit of fear in favor of a sound mind?) Is it control? (Isn't that within the arena of the Holy Spirit to convict individuals or individual organizations without fearing denominational (or cliquish) reprisal?

One reason why that crowd is just so far out of my range of vision at this point of my life.

Unbelievable!

Ron

Soli Deo Gloria, Ron

RajeshG's picture

I wrote the following in a blog post entitled, "On Dressing Modestly in Public Worship":
 

God provided definitive instruction to His people about how those who would draw near to Him in public worship had to be dressed:

 

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

God specified that Aaron and his sons had to have on linen breeches (underwear) that were of a specific length to cover the nakedness of specific parts of their bodies ("from the loins even unto the thighs") when they drew near to Him to worship Him. In an all-male context and even in a context when there would have been no other humans present at all, Aaron and his sons had to do this.

Moreover, they had to have other garments on over these linen breeches. If God required these men in an all-male context to dress modestly to cover their nakedness in this way, how much more so does God want all people to dress modestly in public worship in a mixed group by covering these parts of their bodies at least as much as these priests had to when they worshiped God in the tabernacle and in the holy place!

God certainly wants people to dress modestly in public worship.

I highlighted in bold what is a specific biblical statement that gives a specific length of dress concerning how men in an all-male context before God were supposed to be dressed in a worship context. I believe the implications for human attire in other contexts are straightforward. 

I'm not interested in a lengthy debate about modesty in general, etc. I am sharing this specific passage and my treatment of it for your consideration as biblical data with implications concerning public modesty.

Pages