# Mary Mary Video Spinoff: The Clark Sisters on Jay Leno: Same Criticism?



## PaperClip (May 6, 2009)

Here's the link to the video where The Clark Sisters joined the Robert Randolph Steel Band to sing the Stevie Wonder classic "Higher Ground" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Tuesday, May 5, 2009.

http://www.1800gospel.com/2009/05/gospel-music-on-jay-leno-the-clark-sisters/

Should they get the same criticism as Mary Mary? Or is it different? Why or why not?


----------



## BeautifulFlower (May 6, 2009)

What are you comparing?



FoxyScholar said:


> Here's the link to the video where The Clark Sisters joined the Robert Randolph Steel Band to sing the Stevie Wonder classic "Higher Ground" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Tuesday, May 5, 2009.
> 
> http://www.1800gospel.com/2009/05/gospel-music-on-jay-leno-the-clark-sisters/
> 
> Should they get the same criticism as Mary Mary? Or is it different? Why or why not?


----------



## PaperClip (May 6, 2009)

prettyfaceANB said:


> What are you comparing?


 
The application of the criticisms noted in the Mary Mary video thread to this situation.... So ranging from dress, stage, song lyrics, song collaborations (w/non-gospel singers), so on and so forth.


----------



## BeautifulFlower (May 6, 2009)

Most people agree that there is nothing wrong with Mary Mary song. 

Clark sisters took a secular song and made it inspirational to bring God some glory. Nothing wrong with that. 

Clark sisters always dress modestly and they are dressed modestly while performing on a stage.


----------



## PaperClip (May 6, 2009)

prettyfaceANB said:


> Most people agree that there is nothing wrong with Mary Mary song.
> 
> Clark sisters took a secular song and made it inspirational to bring God some glory. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Clark sisters always dress modestly and they are dressed modestly while performing on a stage.


 
Hmmm....

so is it because the Clark Sisters have been in the "business" longer (e.g., and therefore have established a pattern of dressing modestly?) that they sort of get a pass?

Does it make sense to consider that the Clark Sisters are of a different era than Mary Mary so it might be a generational thing in terms of dress and sound?

How is "most" being measured in terms of the song from the Mary Mary thread? I think there's a poll on it, but I, for example, didn't vote in the poll because there was no satisfactory choice that best captured my sentiment about the song...if that's what the poll asked about.

ETA: the poll in that thread asked about the "worldliness" of the song.

Further, the Mary Mary thread went way beyond the song. Their salvation/ministry was challenged according to their dress, associations, which could, as was said in more than one way/reference, could produce an inconsistent (Christian) message. Could this Clark Sisters appearance on a secular TV show, in pants, with a secular singer, also be considered a mixed message?


----------



## divya (May 6, 2009)

Honestly, the performance is not my taste either. I am looking at the lyrics of the song, and they are quite decent with the exception of one line. Unfortunately, it is difficult to even hear what they were saying above the loud guitar and drums, and it's important to be able to hear the message...to send the right message. (1 Peter 2:9)

(BTW, I'm not very familiar with the Clark Sisters beyond knowing that they are long time gospel artists).


----------



## empressaja (May 6, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> Here's the link to the video where The Clark Sisters joined the Robert Randolph Steel Band to sing the Stevie Wonder classic "Higher Ground" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Tuesday, May 5, 2009.
> 
> http://www.1800gospel.com/2009/05/gospel-music-on-jay-leno-the-clark-sisters/
> 
> Should they get the same criticism as Mary Mary? Or is it different? Why or why not?



I wanted to say first that you are a TRUE critical thinker and I admire that.

The Clark Sisters to me, took a secular song and purposefully redirected it toward God.  Mary Mary's video looked like the world, I didn't see a "narrow path".

I see where Mary mary was going with "God in Me" but I think they just missed the mark with that song. The world should see the fruits of the spirit, not our material possessions the song had a unbalanced message. I think the video and song were poor choices,we have all made them. Their album had other beautiful songs on it I choose to listen to those. Questioning their salvation and ministry is going a bit far in my opinion.


----------



## meka (May 6, 2009)

I see nothing wrong with Mary Mary's song or video and I see nothing wrong with The Clark Sisters. Music can be influenced from everything. They took RnB and changed the lyrics and Mary Mary took the so called RnB sound, and sang about their blessings. The Clark sisters, especially Karen and Dorinda can wear their makeup, wigs, lashes AND their bedazzled clothes lol but all I see is Jesus so it doesnt matter to me.


----------



## TrendySocialite (May 7, 2009)

meka said:


> I see nothing wrong with Mary Mary's song or video and I see nothing wrong with The Clark Sisters. Music can be influenced from everything. They took RnB and changed the lyrics and Mary Mary took the so called RnB sound, and sang about their blessings. *The Clark sisters, especially Karen and Dorinda can wear their makeup, wigs, lashes AND their bedazzled clothes* lol but all I see is Jesus so it doesnt matter to me.


 
I agree! Honestly I think the Clark Sisters wear a bit too much makeup and their hair is UN-BE-WEAVE-ABLE, but I don't call them Jezebel or question their salvation because of it nor does it diminish the power of their songs.

And Lord knows if I was to be counted as "unsaved" because of my unsaved friends, acquaintances, co-workers, even fellow church members, I'd be a pitiful soul!

I'd suggest watching documentaries on the history of Gospel music. They tried to put Thomas Dorsey out of the church, who wrote many of the hymns we love today, because it was "too bluesy".

Sometimes you just can't satisfy some people.... That's why you have to work out your own soul's salvation....


----------



## MA2010 (May 7, 2009)

birdie said:


> I wanted to say first that you are a TRUE critical thinker and I admire that.
> 
> The Clark Sisters to me, took a secular song and purposefully redirected it toward God.  *Mary Mary's video looked like the world, I didn't see a "narrow path".
> *
> I see where Mary mary was going with "God in Me" but I think they just missed the mark with that song. *The world should see the fruits of the spirit, not our material possessions the song had a unbalanced message. I think the video and song were poor choices,we have all made them.* Their album had other beautiful songs on it I choose to listen to those. Questioning their salvation and ministry is going a bit far in my opinion.



I agree with the bolded!


----------



## blazingthru (May 7, 2009)

I like some of the songs they sing but for me they are *overdressed dripping with excess and high weaves* its sends the wrong message as well. I don't listen to the clark sisters but I use to like their old stuff back in the day.


----------



## PaperClip (May 7, 2009)

blazingthru said:


> I like some of the songs they sing but for me they are *overdressed dripping with excess and high weaves* its sends the wrong message as well. I don't listen to the clark sisters but I use to like their old stuff back in the day.



I gotta ask: How does a WEAVE (a high weave at that) send the wrong message?


----------



## meka (May 7, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> I gotta ask: How does a WEAVE (a high weave at that) send the wrong message?


 

I guess it's not "modest" enough.


----------



## PaperClip (May 7, 2009)

meka said:


> I see nothing wrong with Mary Mary's song or video and I see nothing wrong with The Clark Sisters. Music can be influenced from everything. They took RnB and changed the lyrics and Mary Mary took the so called RnB sound, and sang about their blessings. The Clark sisters, especially Karen and Dorinda can wear their makeup, wigs, lashes AND their bedazzled clothes lol but all I see is Jesus so it doesnt matter to me.


 
Ok... bedazzled is HILARIOUS!



arr1216 said:


> I agree! Honestly I think the Clark Sisters wear a bit too much makeup and their hair is UN-BE-WEAVE-ABLE, but I don't call them Jezebel or question their salvation because of it nor does it diminish the power of their songs.
> 
> And Lord knows if I was to be counted as "unsaved" because of my unsaved friends, acquaintances, co-workers, even fellow church members, I'd be a pitiful soul!
> 
> ...


 
My inquiry was not about satisfaction but moreso about consistency... consistency of criticism, message, and agreement within the Body of Christ.

So while we're to work out our own salvation, I submit that in our working out our salvation, there should be some places and spaces of agreement about the gospel and how to defend it appropriately. These kinds of conversations can be constructive toward that end...and they're needed because, using Meka's word, "bedazzled" to one person might be a "single speck of sparkle" to another. Hopefully there's a happy medium somewhere.


----------



## PaperClip (May 7, 2009)

meka said:


> I guess it's not "modest" enough.


 
And how are we defining "modest" these days? 

And for the record, I grew up in a denomination that didn't allow makeup, pants, short sleeves and you know what? I found out that NONE OF THOSE THINGS will send me to hell so someone's definition of "modest" is no longer a prison I allow others to put me in....


----------



## meka (May 7, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> And how are we defining "modest" these days?
> 
> And for the record, I grew up in a denomination that didn't allow makeup, pants, short sleeves and you know what? I found out that NONE OF THOSE THINGS will send me to hell so someone's definition of "modest" is no longer a prison I allow others to put me in....


 

Right, and that's how I feel Foxy. I know I'm not blazingthru but I do read her posts over here in Christian forum and I "think" she's SDA and you know they have their feelings about modesty;what it is and what it ain't. Hope I didnt offend any SDA's.


----------



## TrendySocialite (May 7, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> Ok... bedazzled is HILARIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The message is not consistent and in some cases it may not have to be. Our walk is an individual one. If we allow, God will teach us how to dress, act, walk, talk and behave. Just like in this forum if we get on every bandwagon there is when it comes to haircare, our hair may not grow.

While I agree that there should be some places and spaces of agreement when it comes to the gospel, I don't think gospel music is something that will be agreed upon. It has never been agreed upon. As long as what people sing is Biblically accurate, I'm good. Doesn't mean I'll like it, but I also don't question people's witness either because I don't like their music (referring to other threads).

This is a cyclical, age-old argument that I'm not sure will find a happy medium.


----------



## divya (May 7, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> And how are we defining "modest" these days?
> 
> And for the record, I grew up in a denomination that didn't allow makeup, pants, short sleeves and you know what? I found out that NONE OF THOSE THINGS will send me to hell so someone's definition of "modest" is no longer a prison I allow others to put me in....



A significant portion is personal conviction but the Bible provides guidelines for us. I attended a Baptist school that did not allow makeup, pants etc. They did preach the burning in hell forever for this and that quite a bit. Even though some of them thought it strange that we wore pants and such, but it was fine.  What they believed didn't affect me, because we knew we adhered to Biblical principles. 



meka said:


> Right, and that's how I feel Foxy. I know I'm not blazingthru but I do read her posts over here in Christian forum and I "think" she's SDA and you know they have their feelings about modesty;what it is and what it ain't. Hope I didnt offend any SDA's.



No, not offensive. However, I do find many other Christians to be significantly misinformed when in comes to the SDA faith and also other non-mainstream Christian faiths. Modesty and simplicity receives emphasis due to Biblical principles, but there is much understanding regarding personal conviction.


----------



## momi (May 7, 2009)

The video has been removed.  

I guess I will weigh in if I am able to find it on Youtube.


----------



## PaperClip (May 7, 2009)

So aren't Mary Mary and The Clark Sisters also eligible for the personal conviction defense?

As what occurred in the Mary Mary thread, the Clark Sisters are being scrutinized and criticized about their clothing (in this case, too sparkly versus too revealing) and their hair (too big and blond and fake) as a challenge to their efficacy to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just pointing out the parallels... or the lack thereof....


----------



## blazingthru (May 8, 2009)

meka said:


> Right, and that's how I feel Foxy. I know I'm not blazingthru but I do read her posts over here in Christian forum and I "think" she's SDA and you know they have their feelings about modesty;what it is and what it ain't. Hope I didnt offend any SDA's.


No I am not SDA yet. I haven't accepted a church yet. I don't know all of their teachings. I haven't been to a sabbath school or bible study yet, I just visit and go home. I went to one prayer breakfast and it was very nice.  My father is a minister and my mother was very strict about certian things we can wear and so forth going to service.  But yes I agree we should be modest in our wearing and I am guilty of just about every sin there ever was. I can't think of one I am not guily of. I know what I felt inside when I did all that I did too and so when I read the bible and see things it convicts me because Girl I had to have this and I had to have that because this is where I am going and this is what i am doing. I had the high weaves and huge necklaces and earrings and I look in the mirror over and over to make sure I look good.  in my heart I wasn't thinking oh they looking at me I have to have this. No I was thinking I need to look my best and this is it. When its not. TV had a lot of influence on me.  I use to watch soaps and I had that mentality always wore make up and dressed up each time I went out the house. I use to sleep with toothpaste under my pillow. So when my boyfriend came over I was always minty fresh. I mean please. I think when people see you they should see that your different then the world. I think you should be modest and simple. I think your beauty should come from the Lord. If the bible is our standard why is it so hard to just live a simple life.  I want to live out the bible's truth and if the SDA is doing that then thats the direction I am heading in. But I will be leaving this forum soon when My time runs out and move on with life. it is not my intentions to make anyone stumble or get upset or emotional but to think about why we do what we do and if its in accordance to what the bible says and if we really do search out the scriptures to see for ourselves what is and what itsn't I have learned so much and truthfully I do search out the scriptures when I hear something that I hadn't heard before or doesnt' sound right. I won't attack anyone and for those who attack me thats between them and thier own conscience and the Lord.


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> So aren't Mary Mary and The Clark Sisters also eligible for the personal conviction defense?
> 
> As what occurred in the Mary Mary thread, the Clark Sisters are being scrutinized and criticized about their clothing (in this case, too sparkly versus too revealing) and their hair (too big and blond and fake) as a challenge to their efficacy to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Just pointing out the parallels... or the lack thereof....



Absolutely...and everyone will take a _personal_ stance on the issue. We do not all have to agree on these matters.


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> Absolutely...and everyone will take a _personal_ stance on the issue. We do not all have to agree on these matters.


 
But when these personal stances come together, they are heard--by the mature, new, weak, one-foot-out-the-door Christians as well everybody else in between--as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals generating confusion and discord.

The personal stance angle, in this case, is the gateway to the cop-out, in my humble opinion. That's like the fall-back answer when there's no agreement or worse, no consideration of (other) perspectives. 

Sure, we (general use of we) will not agree on every single thing concerning the global presentation of Christianity. Maybe it's even a stretch to consider that a happy medium is achievable. However, it matters to have these conversations in order to raise awareness about consistency of message and the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, both personally and globally.


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> But when these personal stances come together, they are heard--by the mature, new, weak, one-foot-out-the-door Christians as well everybody else in between--as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals generating confusion and discord.
> 
> The personal stance angle, in this case, is the gateway to the cop-out, in my humble opinion. That's like the fall-back answer when there's no agreement or worse, no consideration of (other) perspectives.
> 
> Sure, we (general use of we) will not agree on every single thing concerning the global presentation of Christianity. Maybe it's even a stretch to consider that a happy medium is achievable. However, it matters to have these conversations in order to raise awareness about consistency of message and the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, both personally and globally.



The only thing to do here is to explore the principles within the Scriptures. Outside of that, one cannot expect that everyone else accept will accept what he or she thinks is a happy medium. You can call it a cop out, but the same way you are asking for people to be understanding of these artists is the same understanding everyday individuals should receive. If someone states that _for them personally_ something about an artist is too much or overboard, what exactly is wrong with that? People sometimes find their limits and many will stick with them in order to keep within the straight and narrow by God's grace.


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> The only thing to do here is to explore the principles within the Scriptures. Outside of that, one cannot expect that everyone else accept will accept what he or she thinks is a happy medium. You can call it a cop out, but the same way you are asking for people to be understanding of these artists is the same understanding everyday individuals should receive. If someone states that _for them personally_ something about an artist is too much or overboard, what exactly is wrong with that? People sometimes find their limits and many will stick with them in order to keep within the straight and narrow by God's grace.


 
I've challenged US for consistency, not understanding. I'm not defending any of these artists for what they do or do not do, esp. Mary Mary. Although I don't know Mary Mary personally, I actually have met and worked with the Clark Sisters personally. Both my brother and I attended their music academy in Detroit and there are some other associations so I've known them a long time. So the question about their dress and their hair as a detriment to their ability to minister, that's what I'm inquiring about, just as I asked in the Mary Mary thread. 

There's nothing wrong with having a personal OPINION, but a personal stance, esp., that which cannot or is WEAKLY aligned with scripture can be disruptive to the Body of Christ...and that should and must be avoided at all costs. And as I have challenged, I have done so without coming against one's nature or character.


----------



## meka (May 8, 2009)

Karen doing what she does best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeX6WzPr8JI

This is one of my fav videos of her!!!!! Has nothing to do with the thread but you know..........LOL


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

Good lookin' out on that video, Meka! Had me going through some of those other Clark Sisters videos, past and present! Esp. one with THE Mattie Moss Clark... my mom used to sing in her COGIC Choir and my uncle played with them for YEARS... that was WAY before I was even born! LOL!

Now I'm about to blow my own thread up with the following:

Check out this video of the Nevels Sisters.... (Scroll to 3:33 to see what I'm talking about)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7Y...nevels-sisters-again/&feature=player_embedded


I saw them in person last year and while they sounded good and had a lot of energy, by the end of the song, I thought it was a kind of a hot mess.... simply put, their "showmanship" was distracting, although another might see it as them simply having lots of energy and passion and fire and zeal for what they were doing....

I wonder if I'm being hypocritical?

PS: LHCF will want to know where they get their hair/weaves done! They're TIGHT!


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> I've challenged US for consistency, not understanding. I'm not defending any of these artists for what they do or do not do, esp. Mary Mary. Although I don't know Mary Mary personally, I actually have met and worked with the Clark Sisters personally. Both my brother and I attended their music academy in Detroit and there are some other associations so I've known them a long time. So the question about their dress and their hair as a detriment to their ability to minister, that's what I'm inquiring about, just as I asked in the Mary Mary thread.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having a personal OPINION, but a personal stance, esp., that which cannot or is WEAKLY aligned with scripture can be disruptive to the Body of Christ...and that should and must be avoided at all costs. And as I have challenged, I have done so without coming against one's nature or character.



This thread asks for the stance of each individual. Not understanding why your personal connections with them should affect how other individuals view this performance. No one said anything about their _ability_ to minister and that should not be assumed from anyone's post. Neither has anyone stated anything about the characters of these individuals. Why such an emphasis on _who_ these people are?

Feel free to show show where anyone's personal stance is weakly or cannot be aligned with Scripture. Once again, if someone states that _for them personally_ something is too much, what exactly is wrong with that? What _consistency_ are you looking for?


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> This thread asks for the stance of each individual. Not understanding why your personal connections with them should affect how other individuals view this performance. No one said anything about their _ability_ to minister and that should not be assumed from anyone's post. Neither has anyone stated anything about the characters of these individuals. Why such an emphasis on _who_ these people are?
> 
> Feel free to show show where anyone's personal stance is weakly or cannot be aligned with Scripture. Once again, if someone states that _for them personally_ something is too much, what exactly is wrong with that?


 
I mentioned the association because my main point in the Mary Mary thread was that since I don't know if they have professed Christ, how could I (or anyone) put any expectation on them to be gospel role models.

Same principle applies here: I have been in contact with the Clark Sisters so I might be more inclined to stretch the applicability of "gospel role models" (for lack of a better term) to them. 

The ability (and legitimacy) to minister is implied/embedded in the inquiries about their hair and their clothing, which was the same sentiments echoed in the Mary Mary thread. This thread presents a similar scenario with the request to see if the criticisms should be equally applied.

Per the question about character: here's what I said: "*And as I have challenged, I have done so without coming against one's nature or character."* I was NOT speaking about character of the Clark Sisters. I made the point that I am challenging opinion/stance WITHOUT attacking the nature or character of anyone in this thread.

As far as feeling free to point out a weak scriptural connection to someone's personal stance, I prefer to allow contributors to formulate assertions as they best see fit. As those assertions include scriptural references logically applied, that's what strengthens the assertion. And no, just because I don't agree with the assertion doesn't mean the assertion isn't strong/sound/solid.


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> I mentioned the association because my main point in the Mary Mary thread was that since I don't know if they have professed Christ, how could I (or anyone) put any expectation on them to be gospel role models.
> 
> Same principle applies here: I have been in contact with the Clark Sisters so I might be more inclined to stretch the applicability of "gospel role models" (for lack of a better term) to them.
> 
> ...



Maybe I am just not seeing exactly where you are going with this. The Clark Sisters seemed  somewhat extravagant to some people, whereas the Scriptures stress modesty. So that's why they may see an issue, and a similar stance may be held regarding the Mary Mary video.  

Also you said that you don't know whether or not Mary Mary have professed Christ. But haven't they done so over and over in their music? So why shouldn't anyone expect them do be what they say they are?


----------



## hurricane (May 8, 2009)

*I have never seen the Clark Sister's wear anything form fitting or showing any clevage. If I am mistaken then forgive me. Now, the Bible calls the women to be modest in dress. This goes for anyone in ministry. I do think the hair and make-up is a bit much. I saw Karen and KiKi recently and they are anoited psalmist. Every song that they sang came from the heart. Nothing was held back.*


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> Maybe I am just not seeing exactly where you are going with this. The Clark Sisters seemed somewhat extravagant to some people, whereas the Scriptures stress modesty. So that's why they may see an issue, and a similar stance may be held regarding the Mary Mary video.
> 
> Also you said that you don't know whether your not they have professed Christ. But haven't they done so over and over in their music? So why shouldn't anyone expect them do be what they say they are?


 
And I have asked REPEATEDLY what is the definition of modesty? Modesty is going to be different to different people. So who's definition prevails? Also, what's the point of dressing modestly if the conduct is hellish? As I said before, I grew up in church denomination where there was no pants, makeup, long sleeves, etc. The ones who wore the long skirts were coming up pregnant. So modesty is relative and not really a gauge of spirituality, in my opinion. And yet, I do believe the Holy Spirit will check a person (me included) when an outfit is out of order.

You make a point in terms of their profession of Christ in their music. Maybe that got overlooked/overshadowed by their "God In Me" song.


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> *And I have asked REPEATEDLY what is the definition of modesty? Modesty is going to be different to different people. So who's definition prevails? *Also, what's the point of dressing modestly if the conduct is hellish? As I said before, I grew up in church denomination where there was no pants, makeup, long sleeves, etc. The ones who wore the long skirts were coming up pregnant. So modesty is relative and not really a gauge of spirituality, in my opinion. And yet, I do believe the Holy Spirit will check a person (me included) when an outfit is out of order.
> 
> You make a point in terms of their profession of Christ in their music. Maybe that got overlooked/overshadowed by their "God In Me" song.



Well that's exactly what I meant in my first post to you. Some may find their appearance to be a bit much, and not as simple/modest as the Scriptures may stress.The Bible gives us guidelines by which we should be led and sometimes we move at different paces. So when you ask for consistency, are you asking about consistency when it comes to each of us as individuals or for all of us together? Whose definition prevails? God's definition. So the best thing for us to do is pray about the issue and let Him lead us to a clearer understanding of His Word, of His intentions for us.

I agree that modesty/simplicity in dress not necessarily a gauge of spirituality? It can be, but isn't necessarily. Different people struggle with different issues. You mention growing up in a denomination that stressed very modest/simple dress, do you think that was good or bad?


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> Well that's exactly what I meant in my first post to you. Some may find their appearance to be a bit much, and not as simple/modest as the Scriptures may stress.The Bible gives us guidelines by which we should be led and sometimes we move at different paces. So when you ask for consistency, are you asking about consistency when it comes to each of us as individuals or for all of us together? Whose definition prevails? God's definition. So the best thing for us to do is pray about the issue and let Him lead us to a clearer understanding of His Word, of His intentions for us.
> 
> I agree that modesty/simplicity in dress not necessarily a gauge of spirituality? It can be, but isn't necessarily. Different people struggle with different issues. You mention growing up in a denomination that stressed very modest/simple dress, do you think that was good or bad?


 
Here's the larger context: all these personal stances are not heard in a vacuum. As I said earlier, they exist for others to hear and what's happening is that there is so much confusion and discord because of this lack of agreement and lack of consistency, lack of liberty (to allow the Holy Spirit to do His job), and more importantly, lack of love, it makes the church and the Kingdom all that more unattractive and unappealing to souls, and it is driving long-time folk OUT of the Body of Christ (or at least the corporate body).

Per your question about what the denomination stressed: it's oxymoronic. Modest but definitely not simple. Meka called it right with the bedazzled... big hats, bright suits, etc. but make sure you have your panty hose and slips on, dress below the knees, sleeves below the elbows, enough buttons on that blouse. My mom didn't hold me to the rigidity of all that, thank the Lord. But a form of modesty did get ingrained. I don't wear bright red lipstick or fingernail polish, even though I know those things aren't what make a Jezebel. So is that freedom or oppression?

I'm working out my own salvation like the Bible says about that and at the same time, I know I'm called to be an example to other young women. And yet, if my dress is distracting, I have to take that into consideration. But if I was entertainment, I might have to do something different...where's the balance? Where's the balance for these gospel entertainers?


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> Here's the larger context: all these personal stances are not heard in a vacuum. As I said earlier, they exist for others to hear and what's happening is that there is so much confusion and discord because of this lack of agreement and lack of consistency, lack of liberty (to allow the Holy Spirit to do His job), and more importantly, lack of love, it makes the church and the Kingdom all that more unattractive and unappealing to souls, and it is driving long-time folk OUT of the Body of Christ (or at least the corporate body).



Well, it is often difficult to discover what drives the stances of individuals. Why do they feel something are or are not appropriate and such? Sometimes any and everything may seem to offend some people, while with some it may seem they don't acknowledge the existence of any standard. The key is personal study of the Word and a true relationship with Christ. The Bible does give us standards, so maybe they are worth exploring here...




> Per your questoin about what the denomination stressed: it's oxymoronic. Modest but definitely not simple. Meka called it right with the bedazzled... big hats, bright suits, etc. but make sure you have your panty hose and slips on, dress below the knees, sleeves below the elbows, enough buttons on that blouse. My mom didn't hold me to the rigidity of all that, thank the Lord. But a form of modesty get ingrained. I don't wear bright red lipstick or fingernail polish, even though I know those things aren't what make a Jezebel. *So is that freedom or oppression?*



It depends on who it is and the reasons why people choose to do what exactly they do. 



> I'm working out my own salvation like the Bible says about that and at the same time, I know I'm called to be an example to other young women. And yet, if my dress is distracting, I have to take that into consideration. But if I was entertainment, I might have to do something different...where's the balance? Where's the balance for these gospel entertainers?



That's a good question. I'm sure that discovering that balance may be a struggle for many of them, especially with all that they face in the music industry...even the gospel music industry. 

Honestly, I do believe there is a standard...yet I see both sides of this issue. So that's why I lean towards attempting the understanding where people are coming from when it comes to these matters.


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> Well, it is often difficult to discover what drives the stances of individuals. Why do they feel something are or are not appropriate and such? Sometimes any and everything may seem to offend some people, while with some it may seem they don't acknowledge the existence of any standard. The key is personal study of the Word and a true relationship with Christ. The Bible does give us standards, so maybe they are worth exploring here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Once again, I emphasize the CORPORATE IMPACT of all these personal stances. That's the core of my point. 

It's definitely a struggle for these individuals and these gospel entertainers when these personal stances collide and cause confusion and discord across the board.


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> Once again, I emphasize the CORPORATE IMPACT of all these personal stances. That's the core of my point.
> 
> It's definitely a struggle for these individuals and these gospel entertainers when these personal stances collide and cause confusion and discord across the board.



I guess my answer to that is that there is unlikely to be one corporate impact...


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> I guess my answer to that is that there is unlikely to be one corporate impact...


 
The corporate impact is multifaceted. There's such a hostility, both within and beyond the body. It's like a slow poison...a desensitivity....

Sigh...

I suppose at the end of it all, we have to be accountable to the Lord and to ourselves for what we say and do...part of that saying and doing includes what we say and do around and about others...as to not mislead people. And I think by highlighting somebody's dress as a negative but that person with the "questionable" dress has the wisdom to win that soul, that's what's troublesome....


----------



## divya (May 8, 2009)

FoxyScholar said:


> The corporate impact is multifaceted. There's such a hostility, both within and beyond the body. It's like a slow poison...a desensitivity....
> 
> Sigh...
> 
> I suppose at the end of it all, we have to be accountable to the Lord and to ourselves for what we say and do...part of that saying and doing includes what we say and do around and about others...as to not mislead people. And I think by highlighting somebody's dress as a negative but that person with the "questionable" dress has the wisdom to win that soul, that's what's troublesome....



 It _is_ multifaceted. "Questionable" dress can serve to turn someone away just like a harsh, loveless word can. As Christians, we should refrain from both. Jesus does truly work with and through our imperfections so that we can win others to the Lord. I don't know that any of us here doubt that, but some people out there may. Before offering a kinder word to someone about maybe covering their cleavage, sometimes we are quick to be rude or overly critical. At the same time, sometimes we aren't mindful about how we look as we walk outside and who we may influence. There is much room for patience with each other and also adherence to principle when it comes to these things.

There is a song called "Do they see Jesus in me?"  It's the perfect question to ask when it comes to all of these matters...something we all as Christians should ask ourselves in everything we do and say.


----------



## PaperClip (May 8, 2009)

divya said:


> It _is_ multifaceted. "Questionable" dress can serve to turn someone away just like a harsh, loveless word can. As Christians, we should refrain from both. Jesus does truly work with and through our imperfections so that we can win others to the Lord. I don't know that any of us here doubt that, but some people out there may. Before offering a kinder word to someone about maybe covering their cleavage, sometimes we are quick to be rude or overly critical. At the same time, sometimes we aren't mindful about how we look as we walk outside and who we may influence. There is much room for patience with each other and also adherence to principle when it comes to these things.
> 
> There is a song called "Do they see Jesus in me?" It's the perfect question to ask when it comes to all of these matters...something we all as Christians should ask ourselves in everything we do and say.


 
When I said questionable dress, I was referring to those (entertainers, for example), who have a larger stage/circle of influence.

When it comes to the laymembers and how things are done, that's slightly different (NOT the expectation to dress respectfully, but how such is conveyed if the dress may not be respectable).

I have been a "victim", if you will, of being approached by not one, but TWO church mothers who felt my "shelf" was on display, even though I have home (and church) training. They cornered me and made me feel really bad. I was already self conscious about my breasts and that made me all the more self-conscious. 

BTW, one of those church mothers has since left the church and the other one probably doesn't even remember the incident.

I'm advocating the use of wisdom in these situations so when a person gets caught up with what a so-called gospel entertainer, whom they've never met in person and has no clue about their private/spiritual life, that there's someone in their life who will show them (in love) where the balance of attention about those things is better directed: in their OWN MIRROR.


----------

