Posted on 04/11/2004 9:02:32 AM PDT by Willie Green
Although famed musical composer Irving Berlin thought them lovely enough to write a sonnet, nowadays few women are donning Easter bonnets.
In fact, you're more apt to see wrinkled khakis and rumpled polo shirts than pressed suits and pastel pumps at church on Sunday.
While Easter Sunday has traditionally been the day to show off your new spring finery, America has become a nation that dresses down, and not just on "casual Fridays" in the office.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Amen.
That was a suggestion.
Do you mean what denominations specifically do I suggest? If so, that would be difficult and inappropriate since I do not know you personally. But I would be happy to knock it around with you if it is a serious question. It might help you contemplate.
I presume you know that God is omnipresent. Then why did God ask Moses to take off his shoes on Mt. Sinai?
There is a difference between God's presence in virtue of His omnipresence, and God's special presence in the assembly of His people, and in the Eucharist. This is, in part, why we must not "forsake the assembling of ourselves together". Otherwise, we could all just stay at home on Sundays, and 'have church' by watching televangelists.
Given the Church-lady righteousness of your tone . . .
This is an ad hominem.
exactly what theology, scripture, or what dictates a certain dress code for church attendence?
The nature of God and the nature of man determine how man should behave toward God. You don't need a Bible to figure this out, just as you shouldn't need a Bible to know that children should honor their parents. Nature itself (i.e. reason itself) teaches us this. A fortiori, creation should honor and revere its omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator.
Once you know that in God's presence we should act (and dress) in a way that respects and reveres God, then to figure out exactly what that entails, one needs to know something about aesthetics. You have to be able to distinguish between ways of dressing that do not honor, respect and revere God, and ways of dressing that do.
I'd rather have someone wake up, put on the jeans, and arrive to partake in communal worship than miss because he doesn't have the suit cleaned.
Theology of worship is not determined by what *you* would rather have.
And I'll warn you that it's much easier to manage smaller children than teens in this regard--you may live to eat your smug words and self-congratulation.
"Mays" and "mights" are a dime a dozen. So are ad hominems.
If you can't get your teens ready for church on time, then you have a big problem. But I'll wager its not demons; more likely its a training problem that has its origins in their pre-teen years. My parents never had a problem with four teenagers being ready for church. From as early as I can remember we were taught to be ready for church out of respect for God. We didn't lose this habit when we became teenagers. Not being ready for church was simply not an option. My dad made it clear that as long as we wished to live under that roof, we would follow my parents' rules. And we did. I use the same philosophy in my family. My almost-10 year old gets herself ready for church (and school) without be told to do so. She does this not just because she has to, but because she wants to. She herself wants to know God and encounter Him in worship. So I don't have to drag her out the door on Sundays. She is usually in the car before me. I don't expect that to change when she becomes a teenager. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." It is my responsibility as a parent not only to impart the proper habits to my children, but also to transmit to them the understanding and motivation that grounds those habits.
No, I'm not talking about my interpretations of respectful dress. I'm talking about respectful and reverent dress. You can change the subject if you wish, but don't twist my words by changing what comes between the quotation marks. I meant exactly what I said.
Regarding your condition, I am sympathetic. It is hard for me to believe that you really cannot find a suit (or even shirt and tie) that does not make you absolutely miserable. (It seems like you could put a layer of comfortable clothing on underneath, e.g. cotton or whatever the casual clothes you can wear are made of, so that your skin wouldn't even touch the other offending kinds of fabric.) But if that is indeed the case, then you can't be expected to do what you just can't do. I remain convinced that most people do not share your physical condition, but, your point that we should give a person the benefit of the doubt on the principle of charity is well taken.
Since you have yet to provide an objective standard to define reverent, respectful dress, I am logically forced to continue to maintain that it is merely your interpretation, your opinion.
What was the dress code in the early church, when the vast majority of believers (indeed, of people alive at the time)owned only one set of clothes? Carpenters and fishermen came to church in their work clothes because the alternative was to go naked. Did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever tell them to save up their money and spend it on a fine suit so they'd look great in church?
It is hard for me to believe that you really cannot find a suit (or even shirt and tie) that does not make you absolutely miserable.
Oh, I have found a few... a very few... But they're so hard to find that I don't dare wear them out by wearing them every week; I save them for the rare occasions (2 or 3 times a year) when one *absolutely must* dress up -- eg, weddings, funerals, etc. If I win the lottery maybe I can accommodate your tastes.
It seems like you could put a layer of comfortable clothing on underneath, e.g. cotton or whatever the casual clothes you can wear are made of, so that your skin wouldn't even touch the other offending kinds of fabric.
Multiple layers? IN THIS HEAT???????????????? To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "regardless of whether or not it ought to happen, the fact is, it will not happen..."
I remain convinced that most people do not share your physical condition
And I remain equally convinced that there are lot more than you realize. I may have a more extreme case than most, but I am by no means alone.
I have carefully considered your views (not just recently, I thought this through long ago)...but I don't think you've really given serious consideration to mine. So I have to ask -- Have you even considered the possibility that many (perhaps most) of the casually dressed church attenders whom you condemn, are motivated solely by physical discomfort,not irreverence?
**** sigh****
The real problem here, is that there's no Romans 14 solution to this problem. Romans 14 basically teaches that when 2 believers are in a state of disagreement, then the one with the laxer standard should give way to the stricter (even if the stricter one is ultimately wrong). For example, one man feels free in the Lord to have a glass of wine with dinner, and another feels a strong conviction that all alcohol use, no matter how moderate, is a sin. If these two men have dinner together, the proper course for the drinker is to abstain in that situation. After all, he doesn't believe he MUST drink, and the other fellow believes he must not, so, an alcohol-free table is acceptable for both of them.
However, this logic CANNOT be applied to our dispute because there is no place you and I can go, that doesn't severely offend at least one of us. In my church, you'd be offended at the apparent irreverence of the casually dressed worshippers, because you have a much stricter standard of style. In your church, I'd be equally if not more offended by the dress code which I find physically so uncomfortable as to be utterly repellent -- or in other words, I have a much stricter standard of comfort. (Not to mention, I also happen to think it's scripturally unsupportable). So there's no place where we can meet --there isn't a neutral ground. What to do?
Logic does not force that conclusion. Imagine that I was talking about an objective standard of ethics, but I had not yet described specific ethical prescriptions and prohibitions regarding the treatment of the unborn child. In that case, you would not be "logically forced" to continue to maintain that what I was talking about regarding the treatment of the unborn child was merely my interpretation or opinion of ethics. Why? Because even though I had not yet mentioned any specific objective ethical requirements regarding the treatment of the unborn, there very well might still *be* such requirements, and I very well might still know them. Likewise, in this present case, logic does not provide the conclusion you reach here.
What was the dress code in the early church, when the vast majority of believers (indeed, of people alive at the time)owned only one set of clothes? Carpenters and fishermen came to church in their work clothes because the alternative was to go naked. Did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever tell them to save up their money and spend it on a fine suit so they'd look great in church?
First, the behavior of Christians in the early church does not determine the proper behavior for Christians in all times. (E.g. Acts 2:44, 4:32) Second, the fact that persons who only possess carpenter's or fishermen's clothes cannot dress up does not mean that those who can dress up needn't. A homeless person cannot provide hospitality in the form of shelter, but that does not mean that homeowners need not provide hospitality. Third, the person who only posseses the means for carpenter's or fishermen's clothes can express his reverence and respect for God by at least cleaning his clothes and his body before coming to church. Fourth the Apostles were called to poverty. Not every Christian is called to the life of poverty. We are not all called to "have no place to lay our head", as was true of Christ.
but I don't think you've really given serious consideration to mine.
The question is not how much time have I spent thinking about your views. The question is how well have I defended my position against your objections. I have said that those who have your physical condition are exempt from the requirement to dress up for church. They are not exempt from doing whatever is in their power to present themselves respectfully and reverently in church.
The real problem here, is that there's no Romans 14 solution to this problem. . . . However, this logic CANNOT be applied to our dispute because there is no place you and I can go, that doesn't severely offend at least one of us. In my church, you'd be offended at the apparent irreverence of the casually dressed worshippers, because you have a much stricter standard of style. In your church, I'd be equally if not more offended by the dress code which I find physically so uncomfortable as to be utterly repellent -- or in other words, I have a much stricter standard of comfort. (Not to mention, I also happen to think it's scripturally unsupportable). So there's no place where we can meet --there isn't a neutral ground. What to do?
You are misrepresenting my position. First, this is not about me, or what offends me. This is about how Christians ought to dress in church. Second, there is nothing wrong with Christians dressing casually in church if that is the best they can do given their physical or financial condition, just as their is nothing wrong with the homeless man not providing shelter to the stranger. So, this 'problem' you are lamenting is not so unresolvable as you suggest.
But I also invite you to take the last word--
Ad hominem.
as you are very quick to condemn on the basis of a few blue jeans -- a superficial matter-- and are convicted of the notion that dress provides you with some kind of sanctity.
Ad hominem.
You sure enjoy telling people how wonderful you are
Ad hominem.
Do you have any criticisms of my *position*? Or do you only have ad hominems?
Just because it's an ad homina--don't mean it ain't TRUE.
Now, have your last last word.
More ad hominems.
Do you have anything of substance to say regarding this question about dressing respectively, or do you simply feel like spewing invective?
That's a false comparison because we DO have objective Biblical doctrine regarding that point. But though that's a false analogy, let's run with it. What indeed ARE those requirements, that you believe you still "know", regarding this issue? End the argument once and for all by describing the "specific ethical prescriptions and prohibitions" regarding the appropriate clothing for church. Exclude such obvious considerations as modesty and cleanliness, on which we already agree, and even disregard questions of the parishioner's physical comfort (ADHDers or not), and address the heart of the issue: Where do you get this idea that wearing "formal" clothing to church somehow shows greater respect for God?
Q. What was the dress code in the early church. A. First, the behavior of Christians in the early church does not determine the proper behavior for Christians in all times. (E.g. Acts 2:44, 4:32)
True, however, if the early Christians did it, it's hard to argue that it's WRONG. What else did the early church get wrong?
Second, the fact that persons who only possess carpenter's or fishermen's clothes cannot dress up does not mean that those who can dress up needn't.
Again, where do you get the idea that the person who CAN dress up, DOES need to? I'm still searching for the source of this idea.
Third, the person who only posseses the means for carpenter's or fishermen's clothes can express his reverence and respect for God by at least cleaning his clothes and his body before coming to church.
You already know that I agree with you on this point. Why bring it up?
Fourth the Apostles were called to poverty. Not every Christian is called to the life of poverty.
So the holiest among us, attend church in jeans, while everyone else dresses up and makes them look "lowly" by comparison? Hmmmmm... Ask Mother Teresa about that one.
The question is not how much time have I spent thinking about your views. The question is how well have I defended my position against your objections.
One and the same. I haven't yet seen you successfully defend anything yet.
I have said that those who have your physical condition are exempt from the requirement to dress up for church.
Leaving aside the ADHD/tactile hypersensitivity exemptions, where do you get the idea that there's a requirement to begin with?
They are not exempt from doing whatever is in their power to present themselves respectfully and reverently in church.
Clean, neat, modest... sure. What else?
this is not about me, or what offends me. This is about how Christians ought to dress in church.
Well.. sorry, but it sure seemed that you are indeed offended. Glad to hear you are not.
Second, there is nothing wrong with Christians dressing casually in church if that is the best they can do given their physical or financial condition
Back to the core issue. Whence cometh that "if" clause? Why can't you say, "there is nothing wrong with Christians dressing casually in church, PERIOD". I ask again, where do you get the idea that dressing up for church, somehow honors God? That's the core question of the evening.
(P1) Every human person is obligated to honor and revere and respect God above all other things, insofar as it is in our power.
(P2) Church is a place where God is present in a special way.
(C1) Whenever human persons are in God's special presence, we are obligated to honor and revere and respect God in extraordinary ways (i.e. not just in the ordinary ways we honor God in our every day life).(from P1, and certain passages in Scripture, such as God telling Moses to take of his shoes.)
(C2) Whenever human persons are in church, we are obligated to honor and revere and respect God above all other things, in extraordinary ways, insofar as it is in our power. (from P2 and C1)
(P3) Dressing formally (as opposed to casually) is a way of showing honor and respect for those whose presence we enter so attired.
(C3) Choosing to dress informally, when one has the ability and means to dress formally, is a way of choosing not to show one form of honor and respect to those whose presence one enters so attired.(P3)
(C4) Those who have the ability and means to dress formally for church, and yet choose to dress causally for church, are failing to fulfill their obligation to honor God above all other things in extraordinary ways insofar as it is in their power, all other things being equal. (C2, C3)
(C5) Whenever human persons are in church, we are obligated to dress formally, insofar as it is in our power, all other things being equal. (C4)
Among the things that come in under the "insofar as it is in our power" clause are: our financial means, our physical condition, our meterological condition, etc. Also, among the things that come in under the "all other things being equal" clause are the prohibitions against ostentatious dress and the prohibitions against provocative or enticing dress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.