If our standard is WWJD, then we definitely fall short in that department. Unless, of course, if the pants/robe issue is not really the issue.



If your premise is true, then your conclusion is sound. But I don't think it is. In fact, the "Reform Dress" included pants.



I would love to do that. I'd get a bagpipe too if it wasn't too expensive. Grab the nearest telephone pole and see how far I can throw it. Call myself Arnold McSy Go.

But you're not supposed to wear anything under the kilt. That would be questionable.

Furthermore, it could prove a stumbling-block to many. That's not good.

But even wearing a skirt is not enough. Another principle is that the hips should not bear a lot of weight. That means full dresses or suspenders.



That's true.

A few years back, I dressed in casual clothes for church for a couple of weeks, instead of my usual suit. I was doing it for a particular purpose.

Nobody bugged me about it except for my grandmother. When I told her why I was doing it, she was OK. But now I wonder if other people were assuming things, but did not bother to talk to me about it.

Hello Thomas,

You have failed to address the questions, but instead have chosen to misquote what was written. This is the practice of lawyers and politicians. I hope you will see the light to leave these tactics behind you.

There is an expected difference of deportment for those in the ministry from those in the world. You can read of Eli's sons as an example. The women taken in adultery is not recorded as being dressed like a harlot or acting like a harlot after her conviction of sin. Rather she was contrite.

It appears you are more concerned with church reaction to a problem after the fact. There is some merit to this issue, but you beat on it constantly to denounce the church as unloving, judgmental, etc. Again, here you are also right in your observation. But this is not the solution to the problem. We should be much more concerned with helping others avoid the dangerous pitfalls of sin.

Are broken marriages good for anyone? If we promote and accept loose standards among church members, especially those in leadership and ministry, we cannot be our brother's keeper. This means we do not care about the flock of God. You may not see the connection between the ministry's example and the laity's behavior. You can comfort the child of a divorced marriage, but they will always tell you that prevention would have been much preferable.

Why dismiss Paul's counsel to Timothy? A sarcastic comment about prayer or a joke about Scottish kilts does not address the problems nor help the people. The Bible is meant to help us and direct us away from sin, our Guide for life. Why belittle and dismiss it's counsel? Is this what they teach in the seminary today?

Prevention and avoidance of sin was God's original plan. The clean up job He can do, but it Has cost Him 6000 years of pain and separation, and the death of His only begotten Son.

I agree that the Amish have a more modest & becoming style of dress.

Gordon

1. Yes, it is interesting that Tammy is quick to label the church close to fallen. She also seems to think that pastors and their wives know the truth about dress reform. Where is the evidence she is right?

2. Where in the SOP is the wearing of modest pants condoned? I assumed the "pants" were worn under dresses.

IMO You are stretch.............ing

I also would assume that pastors who study at our institutions should know about dress reform. I can understand the ignorance of pastors of other denominations, but our pastors should know the light we have been given.



Yes, I believe the pants were under skirts of some kind.

Only a little.

Thank you, Asaygo....

Gordon,

Maybe if you were to be a little bit clearer on what the question/s is/are? I have not had any intentions to misquote you, but maybe what you intended to write and what I acctually read was two different things.

It is true that the clothes of the woman taken in adultery arn't described, however, I would think that someone draged out of an adulterous bed would not be modestly dressed, if dressed at all.

There are two ditches to every road, and it appears to me that the part about prevention is more than adequately represented in this thread. My objective is to bring some balance. Outside of the context provided here, I would likely have said some very different things.

I think where we most of all are thinking differently is concerning what it means to be "brothers keeper". Does it involve worrying about his standing with God or does it involve refraining from causing him to be tempted. Yes, in the end, it is to God alone we stand or fall. So judging others is at best only a waste of time.

I did not dismiss Paul's counsel to Timothy. What I did do was that I jumped to some assumptions, such as assuming that you read that chapter of the letter selectively and quote the later half of the paragraph while ignoring the former part of the same paragraph. If I am right, that would make you a hypocrite and there is nothing funny nor sarcastic about that. Fact is, if you do not treat the councel about lifted hands in prayer the same as you treat the councel about dress, then you are no less belittling and dissmissing than what you accuse me of being.

A: I also would assume that pastors who study at our institutions should know about dress reform. I can understand the ignorance of pastors of other denominations, but our pastors should know the light we have been given.

MM: Where is the evidence our pastors and their wives have studied dress reform? I submit they are ignorant of the truths governing dress reform. I suspect it is not being taught at our schools. It is a non-issue. It is unfortunate, yes, but it is a reality. With this in mind, how can people like Tammy accuse pastors and their wives of being worldly and sinful based on what they haven't learned about dress reform?

A: Yes, I believe the pants were under skirts of some kind.

MM: Then you haven't answered my original question. Why is it that wearing pants was once considered immodest for women (both in the church and in the world), but nowadays neither the church nor the world perceives it as immodest?

1. Arnold, do you think it is immodest for women to wear modest pants?

2. Also, do you think it is immodest for men and women to wear knee length shorts and tee shirts and hang out at the lake or pool together?

That's one of the frustrating things. There's very little evidence that they have studied it. If they have, they are rejecting it.



Perhaps you are right. If so, I believe it is an issue. But rather than being an individual issue with the pastor, it is an institutional issue with the school and/or conference.



She said she sent the pastor something, and he got upset about it. Why would he get upset about it?