Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
How to read the fathers?
The discussion with Ioannes on another thread got me really thinking about how we are to read the fathers.
Does their advice always carry on to the present day? Much of it is instructive and corrective and time-specific. . or is it not?
How do we determine when it is and it isn't.
For example, Ioannes presented many quotes by the church fathers concerning how women should dress. The fathers instructed that no earrings, jewelry, etc. should be worn because that is what prostitutes wear.
But in today's society one who wears these things isn't immediately associated with a prostitute. Time has changed things. A woman in the first or second century might have been immediately associated with prostitutes if she wore earrings, jewelry, tighter clothes, etc. Today that isn't the case. To be associated with a prostitute a women would basically have to be much more revealing.
So do the rules change? Does what the fathers said not really apply? Should new rules be instated?
I appreciate your feedback.
Does their advice always carry on to the present day? Much of it is instructive and corrective and time-specific. . or is it not?
How do we determine when it is and it isn't.
For example, Ioannes presented many quotes by the church fathers concerning how women should dress. The fathers instructed that no earrings, jewelry, etc. should be worn because that is what prostitutes wear.
But in today's society one who wears these things isn't immediately associated with a prostitute. Time has changed things. A woman in the first or second century might have been immediately associated with prostitutes if she wore earrings, jewelry, tighter clothes, etc. Today that isn't the case. To be associated with a prostitute a women would basically have to be much more revealing.
So do the rules change? Does what the fathers said not really apply? Should new rules be instated?
I appreciate your feedback.
Comments
I think we should read the Fathers in the same way we read the Bible, in its proper historical context. There are spiritual lessons to be learned and those are what we are to focus on. 'The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life'.
We can use your quotes as a starting point.
The fathers did not say they should not wear these things because they are associated with prostitutes! In some cases yes, but because it brings others to lust, take your own advice and read the quotes again, which I can post here if you wish.
Out of curiosity...how does a man experience lustful thoughts because a woman is wearing earrings or a necklace ???
I don't understand...
"In like manner also, I desire that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing" 1 Tim. 2:9
"Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." 1 Pet 3:3-4
"By no manner of means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their person. Otherwise, both may fall-the men being excited to look; the women by drawing to themselves the eyes of men." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Let not their ears be pierced, contrary to nature, in order to attach to them earrings." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Such is the case with the stones that silly women wear fastened to chains and set in necklaces." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Let married women be fully clothed: by garments on the outside and by modesty on the inside." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Buying, as they do, a single dress at the price of ten thousand talents, they prove themselves to be of less use and less value than the cloth." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. Clinging to the body as though it were the flesh, it receives its shape and outlines the womans figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself. Dyeing of clothes is also rejected. But for those persons who are white and unstained within, it is most suitable to use white and simple garments." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
"Are we to paint ourselves out so that our neighbors may perish? What happened to, "You will love your neighbors as yourself"? Tertullian (c. 198)
"Let a holy woman, if naturally beautiful, give no one such a great occasion for carnal lust. Certainly, if even she is beautiful, she should not show off [her beauty], but should rather obscure it." Tertullian (c. 198)
"First, then, blessed sisters, take heed that you do not admit to your use of flashy and sluttish garbs and clothing." Tertullian (c. 198)
"However these things (speaking of adornments) are not necessary for modest women. Pierce your breast with chaste and modest feelings.Wear the necessary clothes that the cold or the heat demand, and so you may be approved as modest.You married women, flee from the adornment of vanity. Such attire is fitting for women who haunt the brothels (i.e. whores). O modest women of Christ, overcome the evil one." Commodianus (c. 240)
"But self control and modesty do not consist only in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness and in modesty of the dress and adornment." Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250)
"The characteristics of jewelry, garments, and the allurements of beauty are not fitting for anyone except prostitutes and immodest women." Cyprian of Carthage 9c. 250)
Bravo, you can regurgitate words. Now, add the proper historical and cultural context, and you'll be on your way. Who were the Fathers writing to? What kind of society where these people living in? What was the typical attire of people at this time? I'm sure it will take you some time to research all of this, so go for it. Please share your research when you've educated yourself.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Bravo, you can regurgitate words. Now, add the proper historical and cultural context, and you'll be on your way. Who were the Fathers writing to? What kind of society where these people living in? What was the typical attire of people at this time? I'm sure it will take you some time to research all of this, so go for it. Please share your research when you've educated yourself.
Does it bother you that much? These teachings were for the spiritual well being of Orthodox women. Do you also deny St Paul and St Peter telling us ALL to dress modestly? It was not acceptable back then to bear cleavage or wear makeup because it can lead others to sin, why would it be acceptable now? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the historical context these were written and why they do not pertain to todays women?
Cephas, what I am asking is does the context matter or is all of this normative?
For example, let us take the 1st quote by Clement of Alexandria.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11645.msg139683#msg139683 date=1308286502]
"By no manner of means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their person. Otherwise, both may fall-the men being excited to look; the women by drawing to themselves the eyes of men." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
Women aren't allowed to uncover any part of their person (I assume the face is ok)! But still, it seems unreasonable in today's world. Put in context, sure if it might be reasonable but today I just don't see it happening. In the latter part of the quote he says that this is so men might not be excited to look. But what excites one generation doesn't in the next. . .
In the next quote he (Clement) condemns earrings because piercing the ears are contrary to nature. Does this really matter? Should we be imposing this? Do we have to agree with Clement and thus if a women gets her ear pierced she commits some kind of sin against nature?
It is one thing to observe the fathers' advice on moderation, but when they outline specific things, does that carry with time?
Sure, fasting 210 days of the year is more than reasonable when you have imitation food for everything you can imagine!
So you selectively embrace what is and is not reasonable and acceptable to carry on in our present time? I am not sure why you ignored the verses from St Paul and St Peter which support exactly what the Church Fathers state.
Because they are not nearly as specific as Clement. Sts. Paul and Peter are talking more generally on moderation (not wearing expensive stuff), they don't say earrings are bad, rather that outside adornment is. Clement is much more bold and specific.
Well, what is the point or goal in adorning ones self?
To answer your question -- For different people it varies. One women wears an earring to feel feminine another does it bc she is rich and can show off what her husband bought her. . .
One can wear a diamond earring or a simple one. Are Sts. Paul and Peter saying women shouldn't wear any? I am not sure. Clement certainly is.
To answer your question -- For different people it varies. One women wears an earring to feel feminine another does it bc she is rich and can show off what her husband bought her. . .
You need adornment to feel feminine? Isn't ovaries, a vagina, and breasts enough? And the second is just plain un-Christian. If you need things to make you feel better than you're a materialist.
I can respond and the conversation will continue, but what is the point? It will have nothing to do with the thread.
Do as you wish and believe what you want, its nice that you finally calmed down and stopped being so condescending and arrogant. Perhaps I did not articulate myself well enough. Not sure anyone will ever be convinced anyways, people want what they want, not whats right and therefore they find all sorts of ways to justify their sin.
Of course you did not articulate yourself well, that would require being thoughtful. Is that better?
I'm sorry for not being my normal condescending and arrogant self. Let me return.
Of course you did not articulate yourself well, that would require being thoughtful. Is that better?
Thats more like it, acting on your bias and emotions is always better than thinking things through isn't it?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11645.msg139691#msg139691 date=1308287773]
Haha, you really think I have it out for you Ioaness. I don't.
Cephas, what I am asking is does the context matter or is all of this normative?
For example, let us take the 1st quote by Clement of Alexandria.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11645.msg139683#msg139683 date=1308286502]
"By no manner of means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their person. Otherwise, both may fall-the men being excited to look; the women by drawing to themselves the eyes of men." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
Women aren't allowed to uncover any part of their person (I assume the face is ok)! But still, it seems unreasonable in today's world. Put in context, sure if it might be reasonable but today I just don't see it happening. In the latter part of the quote he says that this is so men might not be excited to look. But what excites one generation doesn't in the next. . .
In the next quote he (Clement) condemns earrings because piercing the ears are contrary to nature. Does this really matter? Should we be imposing this? Do we have to agree with Clement and thus if a women gets her ear pierced she commits some kind of sin against nature?
It is one thing to observe the fathers' advice on moderation, but when they outline specific things, does that carry with time?
Context is always, always, ALWAYS important. Certainly some of the things the fathers teach can be applicable today, within the proper context. Yes, we should all dress in a respectable manner. Yes we should respect ourselves as well as others. No, earrings are not sinful. In the context of the time, prostitutes did dress in a certain fashion, and it was well know. The fathers stressed that Christian women should not adorn themselves in a fashion of prostitutes at that time. How does that apply to us? Well, it's simple. We should be modest in our dress. Simple really, almost intuitive. Prooftexting to further prove one's agenda and worldview is just stupid and indicative of poor debating skills.
It's his opinion. He's entitled to it. We are entitled to disagree. Are piercings unnatural? Sure. Why? Well, one isn't born with pierced ears. One must undergo a procedure to get their ears pierced. Are piercings sinful? No. Is circumcision unnatural? Sure. Men aren't born circumcised. Yet it was something God ordained as a means of separating His people and a symbol of baptism. Not all things that are 'unnatural' are sinful. They're just unnatural. The Fathers are not infallible, nor is everything they say the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God. Christ alone is infallible. I suspect He had no problem with earrings, or dresses, or sandals or other trivial matters. 'My son, give me your heart.' If we all just learn to love, instead of being 'experts' on the Fathers, then maybe we'd actually know what the Fathers taught. Everything, EVERYTHING, must be viewed in light of Love. When we truly love, then we will see what the Fathers meant, and how we are to live, dress, speak, teach, preach, pray, worship, etc.
The conclusions you come to are conjecture, all you have done is accuse and insult with absolutely nothing to back up your accusations.
I agreed with Cephas' general point: the sayings of the Fathers are not absolute law - two Fathers may conflict over a certain issue, they are each entitled to their opinion. There are many Fathers in the Church; we are free to refer to a particular Fathers' opinion or work on a specific subject over anothers if we prefer.
This is true for several things, such as acceptance of the book of Enoch for example. However on this particular subject of how women dress, is is universal amongst church fathers. These particular quotes are from ante-nicene only, there are much more from post-nicene fathers. If we choose to say, "I do not accept those teachings" then you should have a good explanation why, not banter, insults, and condescending attitudes. Something like the book of Enoch and what it talks to in regard to Gen. 6 would be something thatis personal opinion, some fathers support it, some do not. When an overwhelming amount of church fathers, if not all of them, teach this exact same teaching, who am I or you or anyone to discredit that?
These teachings were not to put women down, they were for the woman's spiritual wellbeing. If there is any time we should be teaching modesty, it is in todays society where the iconography of the devil (pornography) is everywhere we turn, heresy abounds and people are upset at me for pointing out a very logical observation. But so be it, if you wish to exalt your knowledge over the church fathers, then so be it.