Sundays

[trigger]

Hi everyone,

This is kind of an offshoot from my reply to the post about what's going on in our local 2x2 churches.

In regards to what I had mentioned about people seeming to be venturing further away from the traditions and standards of the way, I am wondering what kind of take you all have on that? I know lots of professing folks who have TVs and go to movies and know many women who wear pants almost all the time. I know there has always been "rebellion" and "unwillingness" like this within the way, however it seems to be a lot more prevalent these days. I'm glad that people are getting away from being real hard-liners who stick to every stupid rule and regulation set out for them by the workers, but what saddens me is that no matter how much people seem to "get it" during the week, come Sunday morning there they are in their skirts and their buns saying all the things they're supposed to say... It makes me really sad because they are such nice people but unfortunately they are under such horrible control.

Any thoughts?

Trigger

[as i c it]

Hi trigger,

I don't think the words "rebellion" and 'unwillingness" are really attached to women wearing slacks any more...at least, not in my area. Many young ladies freely wear them: and enough middle-aged ones also do (even if only for gardening, housecleaning or other activities) that
the reaction might be more of "surprise" (that they were ones doing so): but the old concern/reaction once connected to it...by "everyone"...isn't there any more....

Sunday dress code is still a sign of respect. (Which I like to see). And while the same phrases may be heard (as in times past), I'd say they were sincere.

[dssd]

All that matters is that you are viewed as holy.

People do whatever they want, just so long as others look at them and see them as a good example.

The focus is on the outside.

Everything is ok just so long as someone looks and acts the part.

[trigger]

To "as i c it": I don't think Sunday dress code has anything to do with respect, I think it's all about fitting in and being approved of in the eyes of others. If it were about respect then why do people change out of their meeting duds as soon as they get home and put on their everyday clothes again? (or atleast until it's time to go out with the friends for a meal or off to a gospel meeting) My question for you is if this about respect, then shouldn't it last all day? It seems to me that if there is any "respect" involved, it is not for God or for Jesus like you seem to be claiming, but for the meetings and the workers, which is why the display of respect only lasts for the required time period. From my own personal experience and the shared experiences of others, my take on it is that donning your skirt and getting your hair into a bun and getting your "professing lingo" going is nothing but conformance, tradition and superficiality. I don't blame those who go along with it, I blame the system for making it seem like a ultimatum.

To "dssd": I agree 100% with you, it's all about appearances, looking holy and looking approved... heck, I have heard many a worker speak about "appearing approved" and no one's gonna tell me that they're not talking about hair, clothes, lingo, etc. It's all about how things look, but then I guess that is understandable when the way is based on a couple here-and-there verses out of scripture that have been distorted and translated to strike fear and obedience into the followers.

Trigger

[trigger]

Just a sidenote to my last post:

When I initially started questioning the truth and its validity I still looked very much the part of the professing female: long skirts, long hair worn up, no noticeable makeup, and eventhough I did not use all the right words ("friends" "way" "truth" "harvest field" "servants" etc) and spoke about taboo things like being saved by grace and the fact that certain words in the Bible meant different things in the time of their writing than they do now, despite the fact that I was clearly questioning I was still judged entirely on my appearance which was still "good" in their books so eventhough I was "struggling" I was still okay and would be just fine they figured. Just an example of how the outside truly is all that matters to (some of) these people...

Trig

[as i c it]

trigger,

I'm not denying there's a "fitting in and being approved of in the eyes of others" concept present. There is. Part of it is like dressing appropriately for where you're going...(If you were going to a high-class fancy-pansy black tie affair, you'd dress up for it...and then change into your bluejeans--and be comfortable--until you, maybe, had to "dress up" again...to go somewhere "special") So there's a "dress code" attached to "activity" (in our society: and with all of us--and we "fit in" to that "dress code" when going to meeting...out of respect..for where we're going: and who we're going to be with...
(It's similar, in a sense, to the fact that you might drink beer--but I don't think you'd go to church with a six pack in your hands, and start drinking it there). But--once home, you might have one...on a Sunday...before you go to church again, for another sermon...)

We started off with a discussion of how those who didn't follow the dress code rules as being perceived (and classified) by others (in our church) as being "rebellious" and "unwilling". I admit that was once true. And admit that there was (once) a very definite "groupthink"--and--"approval thing" present. Supported and maintained by what came from the messages of the workers.

But the church has been through troubles. Society has changed. And--so have the friends attitudes. No longer do women (or men) or "all others" feel the same way...on many things.
(I'd say the oldest generation sticks to the "old" rules--on...probably...most--if not--all, things.
But after that age group...it's very individualistic as to who---really--believes and adheres--to what...
Alot depends on their age: and maybe their experiences: and maybe even what "outside" influences (from other Christian individuals) have come into the individual's belief structure...plus, today, many women are part of the work force...

Anyways...today...the words of 'rebelling" and 'unwilling" aren't "heard" today..even if they should be uttered...(I don't think anyone cares, any more...at least, not like they once did!!!)

However, this subject is interesting--and it might be nice to hear what others have to say on it. So--any one else care to contribute to this subject???.

[shorty]

as i c it,
you switched horses in the middle of the argument there. you started by talking about fitting into mtgs via appearance. then you talked used the example of bringing a six pack into a worldly church and how that wouldn't fit in. you talked about fitting in to a black tie affair. put altogether, your argument is seriously flawed for one basic reason - despite your belief that it's not true - professing people still have their spiritual condition judged by their appearance. failing to wear a black tie to a formal affair may bring snickers and judgement of your sense of fashion in high society, but no one will judge your standing with God. the reason you had to switch to using beer in your example of "worldly churches" is because today's churches could care less what people wear. methinks you know the truth of the matter but still feel the need to spin a defense of the system.

[as i c it]

shorty,

If you see, or hear of a professing teenager or woman wearing slacks, do you hear them as being described as "unwilling" or "rebelling" today??? (I admit that there may be some--"older thinking" workers who might say something like that...but...how about just the average aged professing lady??? Would she describe another professing lady, who she saw as wearing slacks, as being "rebellious" or "unwilling", because the lady was in slacks???

[shorty]

shorty,

If you see, or hear of a professing teenager or woman wearing slacks, do you hear them as being described as "unwilling" or "rebelling" today??? (I admit that there may be some--"older thinking" workers who might say something like that...but...how about just the average aged professing lady??? Would she describe another professing lady, who she saw as wearing slacks, as being "rebellious" or "unwilling", because the lady was in slacks???

yes. my wife and daughter being my best examples. i have a professing relative that was denied having a union mtg in their home because the wife wore pants. but none of this compares to a woman cutting their hair. i know an elder that was chastised by the workers for letting a member of our church take the emblems and have a part in mtg with short hair. this was 2-3 years ago.

[BC]

Shorty,
I support as i c it 100% on this. We have some guys that don't wear ties at meetings and some ladies who wear modern clothing (not trousers though). With the majority in NZ it is "dress for the situation"
No as i c it's argument isn't flawed, we all as humans dress or act certain ways because that is what society or situation dictates.
If you were asked into the presence of the Queen of England or for a meeting with George bush you would tidy yourself up and dress up a bit for the occasion, why? because it would be respectful and society expects a little decorum in such situations. If you went home after the meeting with GB or Queeny you would then tog up in comfy clothes. This doesn't make you any less or more of a person. As we go about our daily life we rub shoulders with many famous or high society people and may even come across the Queen or George Bush but we wouldn't feel we need to hide because we weren't dressed in a suit and bow tie. So saying that those that dress up for meeting and then dress relaxed for the rest of the time are under mind control or whatever does appear to me to be an argument of justification for others point of view.
I work with a chap that goes to the Anglican church and he says it is shocking that the dress standards of his church have slipped so far and that people don't even have the respect to go to church in tidy clothes anymore. Others I know have made similar comments about their churches and functions.

Dressing up is not an issue with the F&W but seems to be more an issue with those that have left, am I right in this?

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[BC]

Our outward appearance is and always has been and always will be a manifestation of what we are on the inside to a greater or lesser degree. What we have to concern ourselves with is that we don't dolly up the outside to hide what is comming from the inside. Also that we don't judge others by what we see superficially. So you can see it is a difficult one, on one hand you make a judgement call on what you see of a person and on the other we shouldn't judge another by what we see.
Dang this gets complex.

I know a really lovelly lady that has short green and orange hair wears tie dyed velvet dresses and sandels has more bracelets and rings than K-mart and has a heart larger than Texas.

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[as i c it]

Hi BC,

Good to get your thoughts on this! In reading your post, it struck me that the fact that we DO come home, and then change into relaxing clothes, shows that we're NOT under mind control...but, instead, under the control of our own minds--as to what we wear. And "dressing up" for a "special ocassion"--like meeting--is like "dressing up" for any other kind of "special ocassion" in our books...

Could be that it's a regional difference too. Dependent on where "shorty" lives: those he goes to meetings with: their generation: and...the workers in his region...

So: what did you think about what shorty said with regard to the elder getting chastised for letting the female with the short hair partake of the emblems???

[shorty]

as i c it and bc,
sorry fellas, but your argument is truly flawed. proper apparel for black tie affairs and meeting the queen is NOT the same as a mandated dress code that determines the fitness of your spiritual condition. and you're kidding yourselves if you refuse to see that, which surprises me from you two. i'm glad that you both seem to be from more enlightened areas, but i'm not and the experiences that i related are real. it's offensive that you would casually discount what real people go through, just because you haven't. maybe i'll let you try to convince my wife. good luck with that. you've obviously never been shunned.

[shorty]

So: what did you think about what shorty said with regard to the elder getting chastised for letting the female with the short hair partake of the emblems???

i should probably say that this isn't hearsay. i was there and heard it myself right there in the kitchen.

[BC]

as i c it,

I have heard of similar cases, and strongly disagree with it. My reasoning is this, the worker doing the chastising is judging by appearances and is asking the elder to judge another on appearance, therefore they are taking on a role that christ never gave to man. I know of one elder that refused to adhere to a workers decree regarding an individual, and although the worker got upset about it he realised that he couldn't ask another to go against their convictions.

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[as i c it]

shorty,

You must have missed the part where I said that it COULD be a regional difference--due to where you live: the generation of those you meet with, or in gospel meetings: and the workers (overseers) in your area.

I'm not (and I'm sure BC isn't either) doubting--not for even one moment--that what you said was true. Or that shunning hasn't occurred...In the area in which I live, dress codes and "group think"--with "everyones" opinions affecting all we did, was ONCE (upon a time). VERY important here too. But now...in the last few years...it no longer it...(not like it once was).
The old generation might not wear slacks. But the younger generation (of teenagers and younger adults) freely wear them. And so do some of the middle-aged ones. So no one shuns anyone--where I live--for wearing slacks.

And hopefully, those in your area will learn to quit shunning--and start showing a more loving attitude to those who don't think--or look--as THEY think your wife and daughter should.

In our area, your wife and daughter wouldn't be shunned.

[BC]

shorty said:

as i c it and bc,
sorry fellas, but your argument is truly flawed. proper apparel for black tie affairs and meeting the queen is NOT the same as a mandated dress code that determines the fitness of your spiritual condition. and you're kidding yourselves if you refuse to see that, which surprises me from you two. i'm glad that you both seem to be from more enlightened areas, but i'm not and the experiences that i related are real. it's offensive that you would casually discount what real people go through, just because you haven't. maybe i'll let you try to convince my wife. good luck with that. you've obviously never been shunned.

Shorty, Shorty, my friend,
You say that you find it offensive that we so casually dismiss others experience. Please read again my post, no where and in no form have I discounted the experiences of others but have related what I see and percieve in our area. I no way would I want you or anyone to EVER feel that I was belittleing or putting down your experiences. That is not my way, it is not Gods way.

As I said I don't see it as being a mandated dress code in our country that determines our validity of salvation. Some probably expect a little decorum and respect in meetings and I have no problem with this.

My comment on the dress code being an overiding issue for exes is more a question for both sides of the coin not a kick in the teeth.

OK?

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[BC]

Yes Shorty,

You and your family would be welcomed with open arms in our house and meeting believe me you would not be shunned here.

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[shorty unplugged]

thanks, fellas...it's all good. i'm tellin ya sometimes i wonder if we're all talkin about the same religion. gotta go, good chattin with you.

[Blue]

as i c it:
You are right. We must live in the same vicinity. Clothing isn't a very big issue here. I don't know many women who don't trim their hair or dye out the gray. Also, pants and jeans are common. I haven't heard the words unwilling or rebellious since I was a kid a long time ago. It's a much more healthy attitude.

[hard to believe]

blue--are you saying that woman wear slacks to the meetings?

[as i c it]

Blue,

The expression among the teens (and maybe younger ones) used to be "Get real". And I think that's what we see happening today. A cultural change...new awareness (because of some questioning/examining the scriptures for themselves): and then...courage....
jThe courage of those who are willing to show "the change" (in their beliefs) and stand alone (for those beliefs)...until the rest "catch up". (And change too)

I think it's the transitional stages that pose the problems. Old and new come against each other...And, whereas children were once told to "keep quiet unless spoken to"...today's generation seems to think they have a right to speak--have an opinion--and are right!!! ()
(And worse yet: they often are!!!)

Changes...mean we're "alive". And I see that as being VERY healthy--and good!!!

(What do you think is causing--or has caused--those changes, in your area?)

[BC]

as i c it,

I know you weren't addressing me with the last post but would like to answer for what I see as the catalyst for change.

For the last 15-20 yrs now children at school have been encouraged to question and to look for answers to things them selves rather than just relying on the word of an adult, be that a teacher or parent or whoever. As children and also myself get used to questioning the authority of figureheads of knowledge ( I mean this in a non confrontational and respectful manner and I mean authority in the terms of knowledge) then they become more comfortable with their own ability to examine and question other points of their life such as their religious background and upbringing, the belief structure that they live in etc. This in turn leads to an awakening in themselves and often a change in direction.

I call this maturing, and I believe that the F&W are, on the whole as far as our country is concerned, maturing to a level that hand feeding is now frowned upon and we as free thinking questioning adults are able to make decisions for our own salvation and be assured that our peers will respect our choices.

Just my opinion FWIW.

[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]

[pants]

so----are they wearing slacks---do workers allow this?

[as i c it]

Hi BC,

Jump in, any time, and anywhere, and in any of my conversations! Your imput is always good!
And good to have!

I agree with what you said (in both postings, and on both subjects).

In the old days, the conversations between workers and believers was pretty much like a "one way street": today...it's become a "two way street": which is good--and necessary--for growth in truth to take place.

As I write this, I'm recalling another thread (where you "corrected") on two different ocassions, a sister worker, and a brother worker, and received two different kinds of reactions. I think BOTH learned what they needed to...because you spoke up. And I really hope the one, in particular, changed her "direction"...if ya know what I mean...(Kinda makes you shake your head...and gotta hope she gave hers a good shake too...doesn't it)...

Yep! Times are sure a-changing...at least, in our areas.

[BC]

Just reread my last post and see I was in a hurry and didn't use spell check, and our ever present auto censor changed a word and called it "thingy feeding"
eh eh eh

Regards BC

[as i c it]

You sure had me a-wondering with that one, BC!!! Thought maybe it was one of those "regional differences"... and I was kinda glad it'd gotten frowned out of existence in your area before it hit us...

(Of course, the mistake you made in your other post..and have now edited...caused me to gulp/pound my heart/and say "breath!!breath!!!breath!!!...a few times...Glad you caught it, cause boy, what a mistake!!!) Still worth a laugh as I think of it.

Your area sounds very "progressive" (if that's the correct word, for it). Do the ladies wear their slacks in front of everyone in our faith? And what about exclusivity?

[sjg]

I am not a 2 x 2....have never been one. BUT I have had a worker ask me IF I would be "willing" to grow out my hair and wear a dress/skirt. And I told her a resounding, "NO!!!!". She said, "oh. ___________, that is soooooooooooooo dangerous." implying that my appearance had something to do with my eternal destiny. She NEVER asked me about my relationship with Jesus....all she wanted to know was IF I was "willing" to be an "example." Now why do they think that the world would see their women looking so "out of place" and want to be LIKE them. I simply do NOT see others flocking to gospel meetings because they want to LOOK just like them.