|
Post by kiwi on May 17, 2011 5:19:46 GMT -5
Hmmm kiwi - things must have changed dramatically in a few months then. I know youre trying to paint a picture that there isnt a look and if youre right then I guess thats a sign that the women who dont agree with some legalistic expectations are living true to their convictions not mans convictions. I do know some women in that gospel mtg kiwi who just manage to pin their hair up for a mtg. Then that got me to thinking - if theres not agreement in the meetings about the look what does that mean?? Do you not think it might not be by how one looks Do you not think it might be how the Holy Spirit guides one to be
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 17, 2011 8:54:57 GMT -5
Do you not think it might not be by how one looks Do you not think it might be how the Holy Spirit guides one to be Those thoughts are shared outside the F&W.
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 17, 2011 13:05:42 GMT -5
Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi. Almost right doesn't mean right We have long hair up down in pony tales in french twists, we have short hair on those who wish to have not many though but accepted by others. We have dresses short and long, we have skirts long, half calf, above the knee, floppy or skin tight you can take your pick. We have pantyhose in all sorts of patterns and colours, we have tights in all sorts of colours in multi colours. Many of these women would fit in to the people on our streets with out being noticed than the normal. So there sweetie I can speak about the females in this country Even with the few and recent relaxing of the dress rules, the meetings women are easily spotted.10 years ago a female at a convention with a tight above the knee skirt would quickly earn the bad name for herself and would be considered to be shaming the family.Just because meetings women can now run around in skirts the size of belts does not mean they are any freer from worker rules.The man in debt who gets a choice over 2 or 3 debt repayment plans is still in debt, and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on May 17, 2011 13:13:07 GMT -5
When my then professing wife was pregnant, she prayed that she would not have daughters that would be subject to all these dress code rules. Luckily, we have sons. My wife still struggles with some appearance rule remnants, though. Too many years with her bun screwed on too tight, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 17, 2011 14:27:42 GMT -5
Even with the few and recent relaxing of the dress rules, the meetings women are easily spotted.10 years ago a female at a convention with a tight above the knee skirt would quickly earn the bad name for herself and would be considered to be shaming the family.Just because meetings women can now run around in skirts the size of belts does not mean they are any freer from worker rules.The man in debt who gets a choice over 2 or 3 debt repayment plans is still in debt, and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else. Well! In case you didn't notice, 10 years ago there were almost no above-the-knee skirts to be found in stores. I know, because I really disliked the super-long style, but didn't have much luck buying anything else. Can you explain or clarify this a bit? What choices are forbidden to me? << ... and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else.>>
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 17, 2011 14:29:03 GMT -5
When my then professing wife was pregnant, she prayed that she would not have daughters that would be subject to all these dress code rules. Luckily, we have sons. My wife still struggles with some appearance rule remnants, though. Too many years with her bun screwed on too tight, perhaps. That's a rather nasty comment about your wife, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 17, 2011 15:38:49 GMT -5
Even with the few and recent relaxing of the dress rules, the meetings women are easily spotted.10 years ago a female at a convention with a tight above the knee skirt would quickly earn the bad name for herself and would be considered to be shaming the family.Just because meetings women can now run around in skirts the size of belts does not mean they are any freer from worker rules.The man in debt who gets a choice over 2 or 3 debt repayment plans is still in debt, and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else. Well! In case you didn't notice, 10 years ago there were almost no above-the-knee skirts to be found in stores. I know, because I really disliked the super-long style, but didn't have much luck buying anything else. Can you explain or clarify this a bit? What choices are forbidden to me? << ... and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else.>>Very short skirts and dresses are the fashion now but so are very long skirts and dresses. What rules apply to meeting women? Well, there's-the-no-trousers rule, the-no-makeup rule, the-no-jewelry rule and the no-short-hair rule.There used to be the-hair-always-up-in-a-bun rule, the-all-professing-females-must-wear-black-stockings rules and the-no-wedding-ring-for-women rule.In some countries there were the-no-open-toe-shoe rule, the-no-fringe rule and the no-brightly-coloured-shoes rule. I agree with the general ideas behind these rules but not as them being forced on people are rules-thou-must-obey-or-go-to-hell.It should be down to people seeking God, accepting Jesus and through these things reading their bible with an open heart and learning of the biblical standards on modesty and accepting them willingly- rather than having rules based loosely on scriptural teachings on modesty forced on us.When something is imposed on someone, even if that person agrees with the concept, he or she may resent the rule and disobey the rules because it was pushed on them.We have to make our choice to follow God's teachings rather than have the workers' opinions on God's teachings forced upon is.Once something is forced on us we hate it but when we choose to obey something by our own free will, we obey it whole heartedly because it was our decision, not the workers.If we choose to obey the workers' version of God's teachings- fine, but many have these rules forced on them and they grow up hating God's teachings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2011 15:41:00 GMT -5
When my then professing wife was pregnant, she prayed that she would not have daughters that would be subject to all these dress code rules. Luckily, we have sons. My wife still struggles with some appearance rule remnants, though. Too many years with her bun screwed on too tight, perhaps. That's a rather nasty comment about your wife, BTW. It is good that God is not like man, for if He were she probably would not have had any children at all.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 17, 2011 15:50:20 GMT -5
Well! In case you didn't notice, 10 years ago there were almost no above-the-knee skirts to be found in stores. I know, because I really disliked the super-long style, but didn't have much luck buying anything else. Can you explain or clarify this a bit? What choices are forbidden to me? << ... and the same applies to the meeting women who can now have a wide range of choice in clothing but in not much else.>>Very short skirts and dresses are the fashion now but so are very long skirts and dresses. What rules apply to meeting women? Well, there's-the-no-trousers rule, the-no-makeup rule, the-no-jewelry rule and the no-short-hair rule.There used to be the-hair-always-up-in-a-bun rule, the-all-professing-females-must-wear-black-stockings rules and the-no-wedding-ring-for-women rule.In some countries there were the no-open-toe-shoe rule, the-no-fringe rule and the no-brightly-coloured-shoes rule. I agree with the general ideas behind these rules but not as them being forced on people are rules-thou-must-obey-or-go-to-hell. It should be down to people seeking God, accepting Jesus and through these things reading their bible with an open heart and learning of the biblical standards on modesty and accepting them willingly- rather than having rules based loosely on scriptural teachings on modesty forced on us.When something is imposed on someone, even if that person agrees with the concept, he or she may resent the rule and disobey the rules because it was pushed on them.We have to make our choice to follow God's teachings rather than have the workers' opinions on God's teachings forced upon is.Once something is forced on us we hate it. I crossed out all the "rules" that apply to clothing or what we wear since you said we now have a "wide range of choice in clothing." (true) Now I am confused by the words in bold. If modesty is a scriptural teaching (true) then what is the problem with workers and parents teaching it? And I really believe that by the time most women become independent of their parents they HAVE read the Biblical standards and choose to either follow them or leave them behind. Apparently that wasn't your experience, and I am sorry about that, but it isn't fair to project your experience over the F&W at large. Maybe in your experience young women never establish independence for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on May 17, 2011 16:36:47 GMT -5
This outfit (click on the link) is fairly typical summer convention attire in the United States for women between 20-40 years old. Skirt might be a few inches longer or shorter, and the belt looks a little strange--but the sandals, bracelet-looking watch band, bare legs, and loose, messy bun with long bangs are pretty common. Swap the earrings for a hair stick or hair ornament, add a tote for bible case and candy, and she's ready for convention.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 17, 2011 17:16:16 GMT -5
It should be down to people seeking God, accepting Jesus and through these things reading their bible with an open heart and learning of the biblical standards on modesty and accepting them willingly I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain what the "biblical standards on modesty" are. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 17, 2011 17:17:13 GMT -5
This outfit (click on the link) is fairly typical summer convention attire in the United States for women between 20-40 years old. Skirt might be a few inches longer or shorter, and the belt looks a little strange--but the sandals, bracelet-looking watch band, bare legs, and loose, messy bun with long bangs are pretty common. Swap the earrings for a hair stick or hair ornament, add a tote for bible case and candy, and she's ready for convention. Yep, the belt has to go for sure and i would really recommend some shoes a little more comfortable (we do walk a fair bit on most grounds) but that type of shoe is not a rarity on young women at convention!
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 17, 2011 18:15:48 GMT -5
Very short skirts and dresses are the fashion now but so are very long skirts and dresses. What rules apply to meeting women? Well, there's-the-no-trousers rule, the-no-makeup rule, the-no-jewelry rule and the no-short-hair rule.There used to be the-hair-always-up-in-a-bun rule, the-all-professing-females-must-wear-black-stockings rules and the-no-wedding-ring-for-women rule.In some countries there were the no-open-toe-shoe rule, the-no-fringe rule and the no-brightly-coloured-shoes rule. I agree with the general ideas behind these rules but not as them being forced on people are rules-thou-must-obey-or-go-to-hell. It should be down to people seeking God, accepting Jesus and through these things reading their bible with an open heart and learning of the biblical standards on modesty and accepting them willingly- rather than having rules based loosely on scriptural teachings on modesty forced on us.When something is imposed on someone, even if that person agrees with the concept, he or she may resent the rule and disobey the rules because it was pushed on them.We have to make our choice to follow God's teachings rather than have the workers' opinions on God's teachings forced upon is.Once something is forced on us we hate it. I crossed out all the "rules" that apply to clothing or what we wear since you said we now have a "wide range of choice in clothing." (true) Now I am confused by the words in bold. If modesty is a scriptural teaching (true) then what is the problem with workers and parents teaching it? And I really believe that by the time most women become independent of their parents they HAVE read the Biblical standards and choose to either follow them or leave them behind. Apparently that wasn't your experience, and I am sorry about that, but it isn't fair to project your experience over the F&W at large. Maybe in your experience young women never establish independence for themselves? Sorry to have confused you so.I'll try again to explain myslef. Modesty is indeed a scriptural teaching and while the workers' rules are biblically based they are forced on people.I believe that God gave us free will and that includes free will over dress.It is our choice if we want to obey God by being modest and not for the workers to force modesty on us as rules "which if broken will lead us to hell".When something is forced on someone it's human nature to rebell against it- and that includes worker rules.It is better to choose to obey something willingly than grudging obey something forced on us.Worker rules o modest dress make folks resent modesty, and often when people leave because of stupid rules on clothing, modesty is ditched.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 17, 2011 18:18:27 GMT -5
Modesty is indeed a scriptural teaching and while the workers' rules are biblically based they are forced on people.I believe that God gave us free will and that includes free will over dress.It is our choice if we want to obey God by being modest and not for the workers to force modesty on us as rules "which if broken will lead us to hell".When something is forced on someone it's human nature to rebell against it- and that includes worker rules.It is better to choose to obey something willingly than grudging obey something forced on us. What do you mean by "modesty"?
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 17, 2011 18:20:16 GMT -5
Modesty is indeed a scriptural teaching and while the workers' rules are biblically based they are forced on people.I believe that God gave us free will and that includes free will over dress.It is our choice if we want to obey God by being modest and not for the workers to force modesty on us as rules "which if broken will lead us to hell".When something is forced on someone it's human nature to rebell against it- and that includes worker rules.It is better to choose to obey something willingly than grudging obey something forced on us. What do you mean by "modesty"? Deut 22:5, Lev 19:28, 1 Peter 3:3-4, 1 Peter 3:1-4, 1 Tim 2:9-10, 1 Cor 11:6, 1 Cor 11:13-14
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 17, 2011 18:24:31 GMT -5
I'm totally confused. If you claim that "modesty is a scriptural teaching" then what do you consider to be "modest"?
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 17, 2011 18:43:48 GMT -5
Everyone here probably has a bible so posting bible verses doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that people who have tattoos (Lev 19) or wear gold jewelry (I Pet 3) can't be Christians?
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on May 18, 2011 8:03:15 GMT -5
Think how much energy and anxiety goes into the dress and appearance code for 2x2 women!! Really, what is important? Where should the priorities be? The ritual at our house before meetings was a teary fit of frustration on my wife's part trying to tame her unruly hair into the perfect bun to please the other folks in meeting -- mainly her folks. Mind you this continued until my wife was 40 and we stopped attending meeting. Sure enough, 9 times out of 10 there would be a frown or comment of disapproval from her parents that a hair was out of place or a hair pin was visible. Who cares? Now she just tweaks her curls and wears it shoulder length. All the more time to do important things like read! Seemed to me that 2x2s were more about pleasing the bun & dress police than pleasing God.
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 18, 2011 10:48:03 GMT -5
Everyone here probably has a bible so posting bible verses doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that people who have tattoos (Lev 19) or wear gold jewelry (I Pet 3) can't be Christians? Those bible verses do answer the question of biblical modesty.Unlike the workers, God gives us firm guidelines (no tattoos for an example) but leaves us free to decide on what colours, patterns, styles and cuts are acceptable.The workers stand up and state their opinions on the dress code as if their opinion is fact and then expect the women to obey their opinion.Such rules include not having a fringe, not having a slit in a long skirt, not having the hair in any other hairstyle but a bun, only wearing black stockings, men not having a beard, men not wearing a tie at a meeting and so on.. I feel as if this is the kind of bible verse you want but there is no such verse.Those rules are made man worker rules plucked from the biblical verses I'd given you.
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 18, 2011 10:52:28 GMT -5
Those bible verses do answer the question of biblical modesty.Unlike the workers, God gives us firm guidelines (no tattoos for an example) but leaves us free to decide on what colours, patterns, styles and cuts are acceptable.The workers stand up and state their opinions on the dress code as if their opinion is fact and then expect the women to obey their opinion.Such rules include not having a fringe, not having a slit in a long skirt, not having the hair in any other hairstyle but a bun, only wearing black stockings, men not having a beard, men not wearing a tie at a meeting and so on.. I feel as if this is the kind of bible verse you want but there is no such verse.Those rules are made man worker rules plucked from the biblical verses I'd given you. Thus the difference between "in this fellowship" and "God's church".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 11:01:14 GMT -5
This outfit (click on the link) is fairly typical summer convention attire in the United States for women between 20-40 years old. Skirt might be a few inches longer or shorter, and the belt looks a little strange--but the sandals, bracelet-looking watch band, bare legs, and loose, messy bun with long bangs are pretty common. Swap the earrings for a hair stick or hair ornament, add a tote for bible case and candy, and she's ready for convention. Having just returned from convention, I would say your picture captured the look quite well. In addition, I saw lots of VERY high heels on Sunday, and the messy "do's" were common (and included me) plus some curly hair worn down. There were over 70 teenagers, and they were a stylish and modest lot.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 18, 2011 11:15:30 GMT -5
Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement. It's not surprising, with the Irvine using Faith Mission's style, that 2x2 women resemble Holiness women. Sort of a parent/child resemblance. This is the point I find interesting, quizzer. There's a strong influence in the early days of f&w from the Keswick Convention, whose doctrine was based on the Holiness Movement. Holiness Movement ideas, the idea that you are born again a second time, began with John Wesley, father of the Methodists. Anyway, the Holiness Movement is a more conservative branch or branches of Methodism. The information in that link on something called CHM is quite interesting. No, the f&w ideas for the most part did not come from William Irvine, although the result constituted a unique syncretism.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 18, 2011 11:44:07 GMT -5
I crossed out all the "rules" that apply to clothing or what we wear since you said we now have a "wide range of choice in clothing." (true) Now I am confused by the words in bold. If modesty is a scriptural teaching (true) then what is the problem with workers and parents teaching it? And I really believe that by the time most women become independent of their parents they HAVE read the Biblical standards and choose to either follow them or leave them behind. Apparently that wasn't your experience, and I am sorry about that, but it isn't fair to project your experience over the F&W at large. Maybe in your experience young women never establish independence for themselves? Sorry to have confused you so.I'll try again to explain myslef. Modesty is indeed a scriptural teaching and while the workers' rules are biblically based they are forced on people.I believe that God gave us free will and that includes free will over dress.It is our choice if we want to obey God by being modest and not for the workers to force modesty on us as rules "which if broken will lead us to hell".When something is forced on someone it's human nature to rebell against it- and that includes worker rules.It is better to choose to obey something willingly than grudging obey something forced on us.Worker rules o modest dress make folks resent modesty, and often when people leave because of stupid rules on clothing, modesty is ditched. I think your information is 30-40 years out of date, or 20 years out of date if in the midwestern USA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 12:12:40 GMT -5
This outfit (click on the link) is fairly typical summer convention attire in the United States for women between 20-40 years old. Skirt might be a few inches longer or shorter, and the belt looks a little strange--but the sandals, bracelet-looking watch band, bare legs, and loose, messy bun with long bangs are pretty common. Swap the earrings for a hair stick or hair ornament, add a tote for bible case and candy, and she's ready for convention. Having just returned from convention, I would say your picture captured the look quite well. In addition, I saw lots of VERY high heels on Sunday, and the messy "do's" were common (and included me) plus some curly hair worn down. There were over 70 teenagers, and they were a stylish and modest lot. That lines up with the under-40 crowd around here too.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 18, 2011 17:46:43 GMT -5
Think how much energy and anxiety goes into the dress and appearance code for 2x2 women!! Really, what is important? Where should the priorities be? The ritual at our house before meetings was a teary fit of frustration on my wife's part trying to tame her unruly hair into the perfect bun to please the other folks in meeting -- mainly her folks. Mind you this continued until my wife was 40 and we stopped attending meeting. Sure enough, 9 times out of 10 there would be a frown or comment of disapproval from her parents that a hair was out of place or a hair pin was visible. Who cares? Now she just tweaks her curls and wears it shoulder length. All the more time to do important things like read! Seemed to me that 2x2s were more about pleasing the bun & dress police than pleasing God. More nasty comments??
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 18, 2011 20:59:05 GMT -5
Those bible verses do answer the question of biblical modesty.Unlike the workers, God gives us firm guidelines (no tattoos for an example) but leaves us free to decide on what colours, patterns, styles and cuts are acceptable.The workers stand up and state their opinions on the dress code as if their opinion is fact and then expect the women to obey their opinion.Such rules include not having a fringe, not having a slit in a long skirt, not having the hair in any other hairstyle but a bun, only wearing black stockings, men not having a beard, men not wearing a tie at a meeting and so on.. I feel as if this is the kind of bible verse you want but there is no such verse.Those rules are made man worker rules plucked from the biblical verses I'd given you. Thus the difference between "in this fellowship" and "God's church". "God's church" has a "no tattoo" rule?
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 18, 2011 21:09:45 GMT -5
Those bible verses do answer the question of biblical modesty.. Really? Some people say pants and shorts are modest. Some people say that pants and shorts are not modest. Please tell us what *the* unquestionable biblical answer is.
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 18, 2011 21:18:09 GMT -5
I think "stylish" has been linked to being with or of the world.
What does one mean by "stylish"? Similar to one eats food and says "hmmm, tasty"...."tasty good or tasty not so good?"
Perhaps "stylish" just has a personal meaning of some appeal, tastefulness without being showy?
|
|