Posted on 04/11/2004 9:02:32 AM PDT by Willie Green
I didn't forget. Although inability precludes prescriptivity, prescriptivity nevertheless remains for those having the ability. I have pointed this out three times already.
When you claim that I "talk as if [you] are in some sort of willful rebellion", I wonder if you are carefully reading my posts. Please go back and carefully read 349, 413, and 420. If someone has a medical condition that prevents him from doing X, that person is under no ethical obligation to do X. I'm not sure how I can say it any more clearly.
You suggest that we look to the example of animals to determine how we ought to dress in church. Animals do not wear clothes. Therefore, if we were to follow the example of animals with regard to how we ought to dress to church, we should attend church (and every other function) nude. If we were to follow the example of cats, we would use the side of the pew as a scratching post. If we were to follow the example of dogs, we would use the side of a pew as a urinal. If were to follow the example of monkeys we might actually defecate on the pew, and then throw our dung at the nearest worshipper. But that is all absurd. Therefore, the behavior of animals is not a good guide to how we should dress and behave in church. Hence the fact that animals clean themselves, but do not dress formally (since they do not dress at all), is *in no way* evidence that humans ought not dress formally in church.
Dressing formally (as opposed to casually) is a way of showing honor and respect for those whose presence we enter so attired. This is why we do not dress in casual wear when we go to meet the President in the White House, or when we go before a judge, or when we go to a wedding or a funeral. We do not want to dishonor either the place, the event and/or the persons involved. On such occasions not only do we clean ourselves and dress modestly and decently to fulfill our negative obligation not to appear dirty, immodest, disheveled or unkempt, but we also dress up in order to fulfill the positive obligation to look our best as a way of honoring and respecting the event and the persons involved. Since it is appropriate to dress up on these other occasions, and since God deserves the highest honor and respect, it is a fortiori much more important to dress up in God's presence, i.e. in church. (For some biblical evidence that we should present to God only our best, see Malachi 1:6-14.)
That feeling is mutual.
If someone has a medical condition that prevents him from doing X, that person is under no ethical obligation to do X.
Well, it's not actually "impossible" for ADD/ADHD/etc people to dress up, it's just much more uncomfortable for many of us, than it rest of the population. So-called "nice" clothes that are comfortable to you are misery for us. Hence a strict church dress code constitutes a very, very, very strong temptation to this group of people, to skip church altogether. To put it another way, your dress code is a "stumbling block" in front of your brethern.
Even if you don't require those folks to dress "up", if everyone else DOES dress "up" ("up" presumes the existence of an objective standard, hence it is in quotes), the poor itchy ADHD fellow will constantly find himself being looked down on. I'm getting really tired of that. In fact, I perceive the dress code as a wicked cultural idol which has harmed me and I marvel at the Christians who dare to defend it.
You suggest that we look to the example of animals to determine how we ought to dress in church...
You are the one who suggested looking to natural rather than biblical law to settle the issue. I took you at your word, looked at nature, and drew the opposite conclusion.
Dressing formally (as opposed to casually) is a way of showing honor and respect for those whose presence we enter so attired.
Okay, some mornings I read the Bible, clad only in a pair of sweaty running shorts. I'm in God's presence. Is this a sin?
If not... then what is the difference at a public event -- whether it be church, meeting the President, going to a funeral, etc? It can only be, the opinions of the people present. There is plenty of evidence that human dignitaries, ranging from presidents to job interviewers, care intensely whether you wear a business suit or a pair of sweaty running shorts.
There is none that God does. Hence, the even the basic requirement to be clean, neat, and modest, is more aimed at not offending others, than it is at honoring God.
I'll say it one more time. If someone has a medical condition that prevents him from doing X, that person is under no ethical obligation to do X. So, if you are physically unable to wear dress clothes, then you are under no obligation to dress up for church. You have absolutely no reason to be tempted to skip church on account of a 'dress code' that does not require *you* to do anything.
Even if you don't require those folks to dress "up", if everyone else DOES dress "up" ("up" presumes the existence of an objective standard, hence it is in quotes), the poor itchy ADHD fellow will constantly find himself being looked down on.
That "poor itchy" ADHD fellow dressed in casual clothes sounds like he would need a lesson in doing what is right even when other people look down on him for doing so. That's Sunday School 101. How in the world would such a fellow handle things like standing firm in the faith on pain of exile or death by being thrown to lions or burned at the stake? (He also sounds like he would need a lesson on not being a self-pitying whiner.)
I'm getting really tired of that.
Well then, just stop going to church. Your responsibility to go to church is contingent upon everyone there always treating you just like you want to be treated. (/sarcasm off)
In fact, I perceive the dress code as a wicked cultural idol which has harmed me
If you perceive it that way, then it must be that way. (/sarcasm off)
and I marvel at the Christians who dare to defend it.
Marvel on. My arguments and evidence stand unrefuted. Apparently, all you can do is whine and marvel.
You are the one who suggested looking to natural rather than biblical law to settle the issue. I took you at your word, looked at nature, and drew the opposite conclusion.
Actually, (if you are interested in the facts), I did not suggest that we look to "natural law" to settle the issue. You just made that up. Even if I had said that, natural law is not determined by looking at animals. What I *actually* said, in post 406, was that by way of reason, and the nature of God and man, we can determine how humans should behave toward God.
I wrote:"Dressing formally (as opposed to casually) is a way of showing honor and respect for those whose presence we enter so attired."
You replied:Okay, some mornings I read the Bible, clad only in a pair of sweaty running shorts. I'm in God's presence. Is this a sin?
No. I already pointed out the difference between God's omnipresence, and God's special presence in the assembly and in the Eucharist. See #406.
If not... then what is the difference at a public event -- whether it be church, meeting the President, going to a funeral, etc? It can only be, the opinions of the people present.
That's a non sequitur and an unjustified inference. Just because it is not a sin to read your Bible in your sweaty running shorts, it does not follow that the only reason to dress up in church is to impress or meet the expectations of other people. Your inference assumes that there is no difference between divine omnipresence and God's special presence in the assembly and the Eucharist.
There is plenty of evidence that human dignitaries, ranging from presidents to job interviewers, care intensely whether you wear a business suit or a pair of sweaty running shorts.
I agree.
There is none that God does.
I have offered such evidence repeatedly over the course of this thread. Just search through my posts on this thread. No one was around when God told Moses to take off his shoes. No one was around when God told Joshua to take off his shoes. God had very specific requirements regarding the dress of the priests who entered the tabernacle and temple, even when they went in alone. We are physical beings, not merely souls. We can worship and honor God (or profane and dishonor God) not only with our souls, but also with our bodies, including the manner in which we present our bodies to Him in His presence.
So many people, even otherwise conservatives here on FR, seem to think that God only cares about our hearts, and therefore what we do with our bodies does not matter. That is a form of gnosticism. Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego knew that it would have been evil to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue, even if they had not worshipped the statue in their hearts. They were so firmly convinced of this that they were willing to be put to death for this. Likewise, the early Christian martyrs were no gnostics; they refused to renounce Christ, even though they could have merely 'gone through the motions' of renouncing Christ with their mouths, and still revered Christ in their hearts. They, like the three Hebrews in Babylon, recognized that what we do with our bodies objectively and intrinsically honors or dishonors God. You, on the other hand, do not seem to recognize that. You seem to hold the standards of the gnostic culture in which we live.
Hence, the even the basic requirement to be clean, neat, and modest, is more aimed at not offending others, than it is at honoring God.
Regarding cleanliness in God's presence, have you read Leviticus and Numbers?
I personally don't feel bound by the requirement at all (even presuming it to exist generally, which I don't). I settled the issue in my head a long time ago. However, other, more socially sensitive, less confident, souls, may well be deterred by the starched collar brigade.
R: if everyone else DOES dress "up".. the poor itchy ADHD fellow will constantly find himself being looked down on.
A: That "poor itchy" ADHD fellow dressed in casual clothes sounds like he would need a lesson in doing what is right even when other people look down on him for doing so. That's Sunday School 101. How in the world would such a fellow handle things like standing firm in the faith on pain of exile or death by being thrown to lions or burned at the stake?
I learned that lesson by being a conservative on the campus of a *violently* liberal Southern California high school. The social snobbery that I've received from fellow "Christians" as an adult is a very minor issue by comparison -- except that I expected better from the Christians. And I am indeed getting really tired of it.
(He also sounds like he would need a lesson on not being a self-pitying whiner.)
AD HOMINEM.
My arguments and evidence stand unrefuted.
Huh?
R: You are the one who suggested looking to natural rather than biblical law to settle the issue.
A: Actually I did not suggest that we look to "natural law" to settle the issue. You just made that up.
No, I did not "make that up", that was a sincere misinterpretation of what you meant. When you talked about aesthetics and ethics being "all around" us, I honestly thought you were referring to natural law. So I stepped out the back door and looked at nature.
Even if I had said that, natural law is not determined by looking at animals. What I *actually* said, in post 406, was that by way of reason, and the nature of God and man, we can determine how humans should behave toward God.
Fair enough. Your reason is unconvincing.
No one was around when God told Moses to take off his shoes. No one was around when God told Joshua to take off his shoes.
And these acts are, sartorially, acts of humility not formality.
God had very specific requirements regarding the dress of the priests who entered the tabernacle and temple, even when they went in alone.
I am not cohanim and this is not the old covenant. Killed any bulls lately?
So many people, even otherwise conservatives here on FR, seem to think that God only cares about our hearts, and therefore what we do with our bodies does not matter. That is a form of gnosticism. Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego knew that it would have been evil to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue, even if they had not worshipped the statue in their hearts.
Don't be silly. No Christians here are advocating bowing to golden idols or committing sexual or pharmacological indiscretions (or whatever else gnosticism has been used to justify).) We're advocating wearing clothing to church that is neat, clean, modest, and reasonably comfortable.
You seem to hold the standards of the gnostic culture in which we live.
That's almost ad hominem again. I'm tempted to answer with something about the standards of pharasiac culture but I'll almost refrain.
R: even the basic requirement to be clean, neat, and modest, is more aimed at not offending others, than it is at honoring God
A: Regarding cleanliness in God's presence, have you read Leviticus and Numbers?
Yes indeed I am, and here you are indeed in big trouble.
And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. 18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat. <
Coat and Tie and Dress shirts are FORBIDDEN!!!!! Do your church clothes ever make you sweat?
(And btw, I don't wear my running shorts to church, in case you wondered. Well, I did one time, to get baptized.)
LOL. Let me quote an EEM (female) acquaintance of mine, who was told to stop wearing short shorts and tank tops when she was 'serving': "No Priest is going to tell me how to dress. They're lucky I come at all. I'll wear what I want, I'm going to be comfortable, da--it." And she meant it. Our new pastor has looked the other way. Sadly, and not surprisingly, it has caught on and many people, judging by their very casual clothes, seem to feel this way even about Easter and Christmas and funerals.
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.