Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Answering a Kelly Reims quote

“To wear inadequate clothing is to deny that you are a sinner and that you need a Saviour. Immodesty is actually a denial of the gospel, and it has no place in the life of a believer. Wearing inadequate clothing says that you don’t need God’s covering, that you don’t think you’re sinful, or that you are content in your sin. Calvin said that immodesty was an expression of despising the Master, “who intended clothing to be a sign of shame.”

“To wear inadequate clothing make up new laws God did not give is to deny that you are a sinner and that you need a Saviour, instead pretending to be as God the law-maker. Immodesty Kelly Reins’ statement is actually a denial of the gospel, and it has no place in the life of a believer. Wearing inadequate clothing says that you don’t need God’s covering, Holding others up to outward appearance laws which are not from God says that you think you know better than God, that you don’t think you’re sinful as you are perfect enough to make the rules, or that you are content in your sin.

Calvin Paul said that immodesty legalism in outward things was an expression of despising the Master, “who intended clothing to be a sign of shame. freed us from the law.”


Comments on: "Answering a Kelly Reims quote" (7)

  1. It was while I was at the Christians for Biblical Equality Pittsburgh conference that I made a startling realization that I dared not speak outloud. Women did not begin to get their freedom until they hiked up their skirts in 1906 (women get the right to vote) and began taking off their clothes in 1960 to wear an itzy bitzy teenie weenie two-piece bikini (Civil Rights Act 1964 which gave white women equal rights). Now it is up to us. I don’t recommend going naked, but I do recommend claiming the full rights of 1964 and demanded that our churches do the same.


    • What worries me is that she seems to (and Calvin, she claims) say God intended clothing to be a sign of shame. If Christ saves us from our sin and the shame we have because of it, then that reason for clothing would be gone.

      I hope she don’t really believe Christians should do things – except confess to God and make amends to people you affected by your actions – out of shame.


  2. You ever notice when something scares the pants of them they start shrieking about you not knowing the savior, and realizing you are a sinner, etc.? HOW you are you denying God, and all that…bleck.

    I’m so glad I don’t fear God in this way. They make it sound like he is going around with a hammer ready to smash something, and it sitting there looking for the opportunity. God transforms the believer, and their heart changes. He doesn’t need this woman to spend her life wagging her finger, and scolding the world. She comes across as an uppity snot, and she thinks that is the spirit of God within her? Wow. Seriously?! Talk about a hard heart.


    • Thank you, Hannah. On my Afrikaans blog, I’ve been getting tract-like comments the past week. The commenter never told me I am unsaved, but he keeps on commenting salvation verses on topics like my commentary policy page.

      I think I advocate something on the blog that makes him think I simply cannot be a believer, but he does not tell me what it is.


  3. One thing I discovered while living with an oppressor, is that the oppressor continually charged me with his own sin. (While I tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, assuming his actions were from a genuine desire to be pleasing and work things out. Was I ever wrong!) Now I see the same thing happening between egalitarians and complementarians. The egalitarians assume the best of complementarians, while the complementrarians, who voice all kinds of oppressive attitudes toward women, also accuse egalitarians of not being saved. Again, I see the same pattern I saw when married to an oppressor. The oppressors, those who are sinning against others, (unkind, name-callers, accusers, arrogant, domineering, controlling, permitting oppressors to sin against others, insisting those harmed remain with their toxic abusers, etc) accuse others of being unsaved, ie: doing the sinning.

    Because I have seen this pattern over and over, I am daring to wonder if quite a number of complementarians are not saved. Paul told us what the fruit of the spirit is, and that fruit is lacking in them when they talk about “roles,” their limits on women, and the entitlement–even justification–of abusive men. For example, although Bruce Ware said physical abuse is not justified, his comments ended up justifying it, along with verbal, emotional, and spiritual abuse–as long as it was male inflicting it upon female. And Ware laid the blame for the abuse on the non-abuser. Abusers do this over and over to their targets. (I prefer the term “target” to “victim”). Again, those sinning are projecting their sin onto their targets, who are NOT doing anything of the sort. In fact, those particular sins are likely foreign to the “target’s” very thoughts. Like being purposely mean would never occur to them, yet their abuser will accuse them of purposely being mean, vindictive, controlling. But it is actually the abuser who is mean, vindictive, and controlling–which would suggest he may not be saved. ( In the USA, those who use the Bible to claim male/complementarian authority over females are male. Therefore, “he” is the correct pronoun.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: