Seventh-day Adventists are not against adornment, only against certain forms of adornment. For example, one of the devotional speakers at an Annual Council that I participated in was a woman. She wore a simple dress. Tied neatly around her neck was a beautiful scarf. Skin showed above and below the scarf. If she had substituted a string of pearls for the scarf many, if not most, of the audience would not have heard a word she said. In fact, she would not have been chosen to speak if it was known that she wore pearls.

However, there is no difference in function between the pearls and the scarf. Both served the same purpose-to complement the attire. And yes, since they are not necessary they both are adornment. If a person hangs a gold pendant around their neck it is adornment. If the same person pins that gold pendant to the dress it becomes a broach and is now acceptable, but it is still adornment.

Not only are Adventists against certain forms of adornment, they are also for other kinds of adornment. The only function that a necktie serves is adornment. It is not necessary to cover one's nakedness. It does not warm the body. Rather it constricts the neck, takes time to tie, mops up food, and costs lots of money. It is so culturally accepted that we never give the tie a second thought as adornment.

If we were to follow the definition of adornment given by Dr. Angel Rodriguez in his book Jewelry we would have to all shed our ties. He defines jewelry as "ornaments made of different materials, with different functions, that can be placed directly on the body or on the garments of a person in order to enhance the appearance of the individual, establish social distinctions, and communicate personal convictions" (p. 8). If we followed this definition we would have to ban neckties, pocket handkerchiefs, broaches, scarves, cuff links, tie pins, and lace collars, and other accessories, since none of these items are necessary to be clothed.

So how did we get into this fix? Some say ornamental jewelry is out while functional jewelry is OK. Who decided that? Others say if it is on the skin it is a sin but if on the lapel wear it well. Who decided that? On what basis have we drawn up a very narrow list of what is not acceptable when it comes to adornment? Is it possible that the inconsistencies, the double standards, are doing more harm than good when it comes to teaching people about simplicity and modesty?

This issue of adornment has been with us right from our earliest days. The General Conference in its Session of 1866 forbade women from wearing the following items: plumes, feathers, flowers, and all superfluous bonnet ornaments, every species of gold, silver, coral, pearl, rubber, and hair jewelry, ribbons, cording, braid, embroidery, buttons, and low-necked dresses. Men were required not to color or trim their beards. Mustaches and goatees were specifically excluded as inappropriate for men to "adorn the face."

At one time removing jewelry was part of the baptismal instructions for people entering the church. The 1932 Church Manual listed 21 questions for individuals preparing for baptism. Number 17 asked: "In matters of dress will you follow the Bible rule of plainness and simplicity, abstaining from the wearing of gold as ornaments and costly array, observing the principles of modesty and Christian dignity?"

This requirement for baptism was dropped in the 1942 Church Manual when the list of 21 questions was pruned down to just 11 questions. And it has never been reinstated in the baptismal questions. This is why there is still confusion on this subject. The removing of certain forms of adornment is a teaching of the church, like vegetarianism, not a requirement of the church. That is, if you agree that the baptismal questions represent the minimum requirements for joining the church.

Bible and adornment

But doesn't the Bible condemn adornment, including jewelry? The problem lies in the selective use of our traditional Bible texts on jewelry. For example, 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 says too much: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." The text says that women are not to wear gold. We do not teach that. We allow gold eye glasses, pins, broaches, watch bands, wedding rings, and so on. We interpret "gold" to mean a few items such as rings and necklaces. We allow braided hair. We allow pearls if they are sewed on to the dress. We have never defined what expensive clothes are.

When interpreting Scripture we must read it in its context. Is Paul writing a treatise on adornment? No. He is giving counsel on how to worship God. In the verse (8) just before, he wants men to lift their hands in prayer. It seems to me that we teach the opposite here. Then in verses 11-15 he covers how women should or should not participate in worship.

The gospel brought a liberating philosophy to people and the culture. Paul said to the Galatians, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Women had been subjected to all kinds of indignities. They could not even worship together with men. Now they were stirring themselves. Paul says "Be careful. Don't go too fast. Yes, I understand your needs, but you will have more influence if you dress appropriately for worship and don't fight your culture in the worship service by demanding equal participation with men."

Paul's letter to Timothy discusses various problems in the church: people teaching false doctrines and creating dissensions (1:3, 4); false views on marriage and diet (4:3, 4); mistreatment of elderly parents and grandparents (5:1-16); fair treatment of church leaders (5:17-20); and problems in worship (2:1-15) of which overdressing had become more important than a worshipful spirit.

Because of space limitations I cannot deal with all the texts we commonly use to support our stand against certain forms of jewelry, except to say that when read in context none of them are forbidding the permanent use of adornment.

Old Testament texts

Isaiah 3:16-23 is another passage that says too much for us. We are so uncomfortable with these verses that almost every book I have read by an Adventist author stops part way through this section. Dr. Angel Rodriguez (in his book on jewelry just noted), as well as other Adventist commentators, tries to prove too much from this passage. He says "Isaiah's attack on jewelry, which we have mentioned several times [pp. 34, 36], was a condemnation of jewelry as a religious and social symbol and as an expression of pride" [p. 40].

He rules out the use of necklaces and rings from this passage but does not say whether he believes the use of "fine robes and capes and cloaks, purses, mirrors, linen garments and shawls" are also wrong. I know of no biblical principle that allows us to take a passage where all the items are under the ban of God and then grant an indulgence to some of them.

When you read the passage in context you find that it is part of a larger judgment being pronounced on Jerusalem and Judah. While God is stripping the haughty women he is also stripping Judah of food and water (verse 1), the young rise up against the old (verse 5), and men will fall by the sword (verse 25).

God is not saying any of the items listed in the passage is wrong. He simply talks about their misuse for power, oppression, and vanity. It was the misuse of these items, not their use, that God was against.

Sinai rebellion

"When the people heard these distressing words, they began to mourn and no one put on any ornaments. For the Lord had said to Moses, 'Tell the Israelites, "You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you."' So the Israelites stripped off their ornaments at Mount Horeb." (Exodus 33:4-6).

This passage is one of the key sources quoted as indicating God's disapproval of ornaments. What is the context?

1. The children of Israel had given their jewelry to Aaron to make the golden calf (Ex. 32:2-4).

2. They worshiped this calf instead of the true God (verse 6).

3. God told the people he could no longer go with them, for they were a "stiff-necked people" and he might "destroy" them (33:3).

4. The people began to mourn and take off their ornaments because God told them to remove these ornaments until he decided what to do with them.

In the days of Jeremiah God's people also rebelled against him. Again God used the same language "They were stiff-necked and did more evil than their forefathers" (Jer. 7:27). But this time, instead of telling them to strip off their ornaments he commands them to "cut off your hair and throw it away;" (verse 29) and he continues, "take up a lament on the barren heights, for the Lord has rejected and abandoned this generation that is under his wrath."

The argument is used that the "ornament" command must still apply today, because we still use ornaments and therefore we must take them off just as God commanded the Israelites. If this argument is valid we would then, to be consistent, have to apply the same principle to Jeremiah 7:29 and tell people that they must also cut off their hair when repenting, since we all still wear hair and we still mourn.

Why did God ask the Israelites to strip themselves of their ornaments? They had just used those same ornaments to make a false god, and just as God poured out plagues on the symbols of the false gods of Egypt (river, frogs, flies, etc.) he again made the symbols of false gods objects of his wrath. They took off their ornaments as a sign of mourning, of sorrow, of repentance. There is no indication that this injunction was permanent. Indeed, just a short while later Moses was asking for donations from those same ornaments to construct the tabernacle.

Positive side of Jewelry

There is a place in Scripture where God actually commands his people to wear jewelry. When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush he gave this command, which has been strangely overlooked: "Every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your son, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Exod. 3:22, KJV).

How do we erase our double standard on adornment which has caused and still causes so much grief and argument, especially when directed chiefly against women? We can either develop a comprehensive list, omitting nothing, or we can teach the principles and leave it to each person to decide how to apply the principle.

Ellen White sums up how to deal with jewelry, not by making up lists and standards, but by leading people to Jesus. She talks about those who try to pick the ornaments off other people: "Talk of Christ, and when the heart is converted, everything that is out of harmony with the Word of God will drop off. It is only labor in vain to pick leaves off a living tree. The leaves will only reappear. The ax must be laid at the root of the tree, and then the leaves will fall off, never to return" (Evangelism p. 272).

If we leave it up to God to convince people regarding what is appropriate adornment we will have got rid of our double standard.

J. David Newman, D.Min, is the senior pastor of New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Burtonsville, Md. and is a former editor of Ministry.