The lost art of dressing for the occasion

[John in Covina]

I know God puts us on this earth naked. We aren't born in little suits and ties or dresses. I know the church has been around for centuries and there have been lots of different types of clothing worn by worshippers.

In some ways yes it doesn't matter what you are wearing - in God's view He either sees you naked in sin or clothed in the robes of Christ.

For some it's a matter of shooing respect.

We have people that show up in work uniforms, they don't have the time to change, either coming from work or going directly to work.
But if the time and opportunity allows some consideration to be dressed in a repectful manner, it is prefered by many and seems a good consideration that is "meet, right and salutary."

The concept may be more of Sunday morning services should not resemble Saturday night at the tavern.

There is also the concept of distraction and what exactly are you there for.

While it is better to show up then not go, it is better to show up engaged to appreciate the Service than not.

Perhaps the idea that it is an imperfect world and there is always room for improvement no longer applys for many people?

Where do we draw the line? Bathrobe, slippers and a Depends adult diaper even though one is not disabled or ill?

 

[Noirblack]

In some ways yes it doesn't matter what you are wearing - in God's view He either sees you naked in sin or clothed in the robes of Christ.

For some it's a matter of shooing respect.

We have people that show up in work uniforms, they don't have the time to change, either coming from work or going directly to work.
But if the time and opportunity allows some consideration to be dressed in a repectful manner, it is prefered by many and seems a good consideration that is "meet, right and salutary."

The concept may be more of Sunday morning services should not resemble Saturday night at the tavern.

There is also the concept of distraction and what exactly are you there for.

While it is better to show up then not go, it is better to show up engaged to appreciate the Service than not.

Perhaps the idea that it is an imperfect world and there is always room for improvement no longer applys for many people?

Where do we draw the line? Bathrobe, slippers and a Depends adult diaper even though one is not disabled or ill?

I don't know where you draw the line or whether you ever draw the line. If people show up in a uniform from just having left work, that shouldn't be a problem.

Generally, if people own nicer clothes, they will opt to wear them to church. If they only own t-shirts and jeans, then that is what they will wear, and I don't have a problem with that. If they own nice clothes but want to wear t-shirts and jeans to church, it doesn't bother me. They are autonomous individuals and I cannot dictate what they wear.

The odds of someone attending church in Depends and a bathrobe and slippers is rather low to say the least. But it will not harm me in any way if it ever happens.

I agree with you that it's a matter of showing some respect. But I think respect emanates from the heart.

 

[Undertow]

I guess let's put it this way -

Let's say you're attending a graduation ceremony at a school that has a significant portion of Polish Jews. You sit down with your family, you're waiting through all the names, and just before your graduate is called, the guy in front of him walks up on stage dressed as Joseph Stalin, salutes the Dean and pulls his pants down to wipe his butt with the flag.

Why not? Who cares? Do what thou will. If he's a pro-Stalinist and hates the American flag, live and let live, right? And regarding the atrocities committed against Polish Jews by Uncle Joe - eh, what's the matter? At least he showed up in a uniform, right?

There must be a line drawn, and the FL, although obviously no leader in social order, is still a place for some of us to voice our concerns that a worship ceremony should be treated with respect. One should respect one's self, and the others around them (not even speaking to god(s) or godess(es)). No one here is going to tell you that everyone must wear the most expensive clothing they can afford, but I'd venture that most of us think there should be an internal mechanism which *clicks* and says, "Gee, I love my god(s), I should show some respect."

Or they could just show up to the Polish Jewish graduation dressed as Stalin, I guess, and all of us should accept them for being "unique"... [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

Or, to put it succinctly, If you're going to church to "make a statement," you'd be better off not going to church at all.

 

[John in Covina]

The odds of someone attending church in Depends and a bathrobe and slippers is rather low to say the least. But it will not harm me in any way if it ever happens.

I agree with you that it's a matter of showing some respect. But I think respect emanates from the heart.

That's the tuff question, as men we cannot judge the heart of others but only by their actions. As an aside - there were plenty of people that loved their children and wives, played with the family dog, listened to classsical music and participated in the death of concentration camp vicitims or POW's. From a hearts stand point most would say it doesn't offset the bad behavior. For some it is a concept of equality over all, so what if the person stinks because he's got a load in his pants he gets equal access, too bad if it spoils your dinner or library visit.

Believe me the library is where I have had too many people take my breath away in a bad way. Is it an imposition on their part that I can't object to? Why is it the low end of the scale always gets to run amok and the regular people hoping for standards gets the shaft? Who considers that to be real justice?

 

[Noirblack]

I guess let's put it this way -

Let's say you're attending a graduation ceremony at a school that has a significant portion of Polish Jews. You sit down with your family, you're waiting through all the names, and just before your graduate is called, the guy in front of him walks up on stage dressed as Joseph Stalin, salutes the Dean and pulls his pants down to wipe his butt with the flag.

Why not? Who cares? Do what thou will. If he's a pro-Stalinist and hates the American flag, live and let live, right? And regarding the atrocities committed against Polish Jews by Uncle Joe - eh, what's the matter? At least he showed up in a uniform, right?

There must be a line drawn, and the FL, although obviously no leader in social order, is still a place for some of us to voice our concerns that a worship ceremony should be treated with respect. One should respect one's self, and the others around them (not even speaking to god(s) or godess(es)). No one here is going to tell you that everyone must wear the most expensive clothing they can afford, but I'd venture that most of us think there should be an internal mechanism which *clicks* and says, "Gee, I love my god(s), I should show some respect."

Or they could just show up to the Polish Jewish graduation dressed as Stalin, I guess, and all of us should accept them for being "unique"... [huh]

In your example of the graduation ceremony, the miscreant's behaviour is at cross purposes to the ceremony. Although he is receiving his diploma at the moment he misbehaves, his actual behaviour is not appropriate for the venue.

In the same vein, a person who comes to church and stands up and shouts "there is no God" is at cross purposes to the church service. If they are not there to worship, they should be asked to leave.

By contrast, if a person is not well-dressed, but they come to church for the purpose of worshipping, I don't see a problem with that. If they come to participate like everyone else, sing the hymns, say the prayers, listen to the sermon, take communion, then they should be welcomed.

 

[Noirblack]

That's the tuff question, as men we cannot judge the heart of others but only by their actions. As an aside - there were plenty of people that loved their children and wives, played with the family dog, listened to classsical music and participated in the death of concentration camp vicitims or POW's. From a hearts stand point most would say it doesn't offset the bad behavior. For some it is a concept of equality over all, so what if the person stinks because he's got a load in his pants he gets equal access, too bad if it spoils your dinner or library visit.

Believe me the library is where I have had too many people take my breath away in a bad way. Is it an imposition on their part that I can't object to? Why is it the low end of the scale always gets to run amok and the regular people hoping for standards gets the shaft? Who considers that to be real justice?

I agree with you that we can only judge other people by their actions. But, no matter how they are dressed, if they are in church doing the same things I am doing how can I say they are wrong? If they go out and commit crimes or atrocities, then we can say they are wrong.

If someone is actually soiling themselves, then they need some type of assistance because they have either a physical or mental problem. If it occurs at a library, there should be a security guard informed and then the proper steps can be taken. If someone actually soiled themselves in church, then they are having a physical or mental issue and help must be rendered immediately.

 

[John in Covina]

I agree with you that we can only judge other people by their actions. But, no matter how they are dressed, if they are in church doing the same things I am doing how can I say they are wrong?

But are they way they are dressed considered an action?

If they go out and commit crimes or atrocities, then we can say they are wrong.
Some dress may be considered atrocious.

If someone is actually soiling themselves, then they need some type of assistance because they have either a physical or mental problem. If it occurs at a library, there should be a security guard informed and then the proper steps can be taken. If someone actually soiled themselves in church, then they are having a physical or mental issue and help must be rendered immediately.

Sorry not in California and many areas of the US. You would be considered as judgemental and discriminartory, in California no person mentally ill can be forced to take their medicatio unless by a judge's ruling which means there has to be numerous incidents before there is a recomendation to do so. And there are a whole slew of lawyers that would fight it.

 

[Noirblack]

Sorry not in California and many areas of the US. You would be considered as judgemental and discriminartory, in California no person mentally ill can be forced to take their medicatio unless by a judge's ruling which means there has to be numerous incidents before there is a recomendation to do so. And there are a whole slew of lawyers that would fight it.

'
I don't think that the way a person is dressed is considered an action. That would really be stretching the definition of the word "action"

I don't think that atrocious dress, even in church, can be equated with atrocities such as putting people into death camps. The two terms "atrocious" and "atrocity" might have the same root word, but they do have distinctly different meanings, especially in the different contexts we are using here.

Even though a person can't be forced to take medications, wouldn't the best course of action still be to at least try to get them some medical help? Perhaps they could be taken to an emergency room. They might be talked into taking there medications. If they won't take them, at least your tried to help. I think we are at a point where these examples aren't really on topic with the "jeans and t-shirts" in church concept, and probably can't help us sort out that topic.

 

[jamespowers]

Sorry not in California and many areas of the US. You would be considered as judgemental and discriminartory, in California no person mentally ill can be forced to take their medicatio unless by a judge's ruling which means there has to be numerous incidents before there is a recomendation to do so. And there are a whole slew of lawyers that would fight it.

And there is the rub. When there are no standards, low standards dominate. Everything has standards--even love without them you have no guidelines and that is the problem. It's human nature to analyze, criticize, and judge each other, to some degree. We judge and evaluate each other on many different things - ex., physical appearance and attractiveness, personality, intelligence, heart, character, values, beliefs, spirituality, occupation, ambition, success, status, wealth, possessions. Judgement and criticism can, of course, be constructive, and may be very helpful. It can save your life if you stumble into the wrong side of town or you see a suspicious person that you need to avoid. It has gotten us to where we are today. A society without standards---primative.
Without standards, civilized societies could not exist and function in the way we knowthem. Probably the most fundamental standards relating to commerce are the monetary standards. We would be running around trading chickens and cows otherwise. As we go backwaqrd and do our own thing we end up backsliding right back to the cave.

 

[rue]

And there is the rub. When there are no standards, low standards dominate. Everything has standards--even love without them you have no guidelines and that is the problem. It's human nature to analyze, criticize, and judge each other, to some degree. We judge and evaluate each other on many different things - ex., physical appearance and attractiveness, personality, intelligence, heart, character, values, beliefs, spirituality, occupation, ambition, success, status, wealth, possessions. Judgement and criticism can, of course, be constructive, and may be very helpful. It can save your life if you stumble into the wrong side of town or you see a suspicious person that you need to avoid. It has gotten us to where we are today. A society without standards---primative.
Without standards, civilized societies could not exist and function in the way we knowthem. Probably the most fundamental standards relating to commerce are the monetary standards. We would be running around trading chickens and cows otherwise. As we go backwaqrd and do our own thing we end up backsliding right back to the cave.

Well said James.

 

[William Stratford]

When there are no standards, low standards dominate.

That pretty much cuts to the crux of the matter.

 

[Noirblack]

And there is the rub. When there are no standards, low standards dominate. Everything has standards--even love without them you have no guidelines and that is the problem. It's human nature to analyze, criticize, and judge each other, to some degree. We judge and evaluate each other on many different things - ex., physical appearance and attractiveness, personality, intelligence, heart, character, values, beliefs, spirituality, occupation, ambition, success, status, wealth, possessions. Judgement and criticism can, of course, be constructive, and may be very helpful. It can save your life if you stumble into the wrong side of town or you see a suspicious person that you need to avoid. It has gotten us to where we are today. A society without standards---primative.
Without standards, civilized societies could not exist and function in the way we knowthem. Probably the most fundamental standards relating to commerce are the monetary standards. We would be running around trading chickens and cows otherwise. As we go backwaqrd and do our own thing we end up backsliding right back to the cave.

I don't see the connection between the laws in California regarding the mentally ill and there being no standards at all. You are making a number of "big picture" statements here about human nature, economics, and the possibility of becoming cave dwellers again. I don't think that just because you can't forcibly medicate mentally ill people in California we don't have any standards at all.

 

[jamespowers]

I don't see the connection between the laws in California regarding the mentally ill and there being no standards at all. You are making a number of "big picture" statements here about human nature, economics, and the possibility of becoming cave dwellers again. I don't think that just because you can't forcibly medicate mentally ill people in California we don't have any standards at all.

You are going from the general to the specific. I was not responding to that. I was responding to standards in general.
However, morons here did, in fact, make it so crazy people can walk the streets and possibly hurt themselves or other people. My wife worked at a "Day Care" place for such individuals. It was way out there. The "clients" regularly attacked the staff and each other. The worst part was that they just walked out on to the street after their alloted time there. We have no standards for them and they could hurt people out on the street---children and even animals. That is a huge backslide from 50 years ago when they would have gotten treated---forcibly if necessary---because they were a danger to the public and themselves if left untreated. We went from standards to none in that case.

 

[Undertow]

In your example of the graduation ceremony, the miscreant's behaviour is at cross purposes to the ceremony. Although he is receiving his diploma at the moment he misbehaves, his actual behaviour is not appropriate for the venue.

In the same vein, a person who comes to church and stands up and shouts "there is no God" is at cross purposes to the church service. If they are not there to worship, they should be asked to leave.

By contrast, if a person is not well-dressed, but they come to church for the purpose of worshipping, I don't see a problem with that. If they come to participate like everyone else, sing the hymns, say the prayers, listen to the sermon, take communion, then they should be welcomed.

Granted, I was using an extreme example for the sake of everyone's eyes and brains (I get windy, afterall).

But take the same situation - and the guy ahead walks up without his robe and hat wearing a pair of daisy dukes, a stained undershirt and jelly shoes. He's not doing anything but taking his diploma and walking outside to light up a J.

Sure, no one is doing anything wrong. But watch everyone's eyes as they look on in disgust at this bum. And rightfully so.

When you grow up into adulthood, you are expected to take these things seriously. And by "these things", I'm referring to graduations, church services, funerals, weddings, etc.

 

[rue]

Granted, I was using an extreme example for the sake of everyone's eyes and brains (I get windy, afterall).

But take the same situation - and the guy ahead walks up without his robe and hat wearing a pair of daisy dukes, a stained undershirt and jelly shoes. He's not doing anything but taking his diploma and walking outside to light up a J.

Sure, no one is doing anything wrong. But watch everyone's eyes as they look on in disgust at this bum. And rightfully so.

When you grow up into adulthood, you are expected to take these things seriously. And by "these things", I'm referring to graduations, church services, funerals, weddings, etc.

Ahhh.... but you see, the problem is no one wants to grow up anymore.

Anyone else remember being a kid and saying "When I grow up no one will tell me what to do!"? The majority of adults still have that attitude.

 

[jamespowers]

Ahhh.... but you see, the problem is no one wants to grow up anymore.

Anyone else remember being a kid and saying "When I grow up no one will tell me what to do!"? The majority of adults still have that attitude.

Perfect example:
[video=youtube_share;m6UFhis2xMQ]http://youtu.be/m6UFhis2xMQ[/video]

 

[Noirblack]

Granted, I was using an extreme example for the sake of everyone's eyes and brains (I get windy, afterall).

But take the same situation - and the guy ahead walks up without his robe and hat wearing a pair of daisy dukes, a stained undershirt and jelly shoes. He's not doing anything but taking his diploma and walking outside to light up a J.

Sure, no one is doing anything wrong. But watch everyone's eyes as they look on in disgust at this bum. And rightfully so.

When you grow up into adulthood, you are expected to take these things seriously. And by "these things", I'm referring to graduations, church services, funerals, weddings, etc.

I think in this case, the person would not be allowed on stage by the person running the ceremony. This is because you are expected to wear a gown and mortarboard in this situation. If the person walked up on stage and took the gown off, wearing what you described underneath, then the person would receive the scorn of the audience. At least in this situation I could understand it because a gown is to be worn on stage. Even if the person was wearing a suit underneath the gown, it would raise eyebrows in the audience, because the convention is to wear your gown while getting your diploma.

By contrast, at church there is no rule that you wear one exact specific garment, unless you are in the choir or you are the preacher and a collar and/or robes is expected. If a person went to church in a t-shirt and jeans, I don't think it is fair for them to be scorned if they are there to worship God. I think the church is the one place where what is inside a person is more important than what is outside the person.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Another way to look at the question of dressing is to consider tradition: For generation upon generation, up until very recently, it was taken for granted that people would dress well for church, for the symphony, for a good restaurant, for a wedding, for a funeral, and so forth. Now, over the course of just a few years, a segment of the population (which I personally view as being lazy, slothful, self-centered, and ignorant) has taken it upon themselves to discard this tradition and show up dressed however they please, thus lessening the experience for everyone else. To these people, there is no such thing as an "occasion" except as defined by their own presence (hey, man, what's your problem? Does anybody except me even exist? I just wanna do my own thing . . .).

 

[Angus Forbes]

I think the church is the one place where what is inside a person is more important than what is outside the person.

Outside of a dog, a good book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read anyway (or something like that)