What did you think of Margaret Rodgers’ article in Southern Cross (April)?

I understand Christians being upset at the examples given in the first part of the article, but it seems a big jump from there to the last two paragraphs.

Presuming the conference included other aspects such as teaching, worship and fellowship, is there anything innately wrong with a “pamper tent”? It seems that it serves quite a different purpose to that of “our clergy wives’ or Mother Union meetings”.

I don’t think enjoying some external pampering negates the possibility of sharing in fellowship at the same time. Neither is it necessarily in conflict with obeying Paul’s words to “dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good deeds”.

Can we not look after ourselves and grow in relationship with God and our sisters in Christ? The issues raised initially, though important, seem quite different to querying whether Christian women should appropriate any aspects of the fashion world and the ease with which we absorb “the consumer ethos” and dismiss Paul’s words.

It is Christian character, not appearance, that adorns the gospel.

I agree, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t (even shouldn’t?) look after both. Surely we should present Christianity attractively – certainly in terms of our godliness and character, but also in matters of personal grooming and hygiene. We must achieve a balance between paying undue attention to external things and offending others by making little or no effort in these areas (though I am not suggesting Margaret is advocating this).

I expect we do this the same way we decide our limits in other areas, reading the Bible and prayerfully examining our motivations, priorities and the way we use our time and money - and obeying God when He shows us things to change. (Personally, this meant that I stopped buying Marie Claire the day it came out, when, as a “young but relatively unmonied” student, I found myself susceptible to covetousness and worldliness).

It seems to me that this is one of many areas in which we must each set limits and accept that we will differ in them.

fashion

I agree, Hannah, that Margaret’s article made a strange jump from the original issue onto something related, but somewhat different. I don’t want to comment on the later issue, about whether christian conferences should have pamper tents at them.

But on the substantive issue of whether the fashion industry has gone too far, I would say that society has gone too far. Fashion merely reflects what it can get away with. Yes, the catwalk is full of bare bodies, etc, but that is because we have topless beaches, we have newsagencies displaying naked women on the cover of magazines, we have TV shows like “Secret Life of Us” and “Big Brother”, etc, etc. In relation to the IOC label, what about rock bands calling themselves The SuperJesus? I find that enormously offensive, but I’ve never heard anyone complain about blasphemy. What about that old ad for Chivas Regal scotch, with the leggy woman and the slogan “Yes, God is a man”. The only outrage about that was that it was sexist, not that it was blasphemous!

So, yes, I agree with Margaret, but I don’t think fashion is the culprit per se. It is the broader attitudes of our society that tolerates immorality - in fact that tries to pretend there is no such thing.

When I did my Diploma of Ministry, I did some ushering at one of the “Hillsong Women Conferences” in 2000. I saw nothing ungodly happen, I saw a lot of young, older and inbetween women (3000 odd) come to the conference and for many, a time of being served and pampered instead of being the servers.
Can you imagine a young married mother of 3 kids, how often she is able to be waited on by her family. I say margerat has a beef about “Hillsong” as I remember reading an article last year that knocked the same womens conference.

I saw at the one I went to, women crying, women laughing, women helping each other and many groups of women coming together praying for each other, and many women making a first time committment to Christ

I read the article and think she has made a large leap to compare “Hillsong” with a fashion label.

craig…

[quote author="the Dimster"]So, yes, I agree with Margaret, but I don’t think fashion is the culprit per se. It is the broader attitudes of our society that tolerates immorality - in fact that tries to pretend there is no such thing.

I can’t summon up a huge amount of moral outrage about this..  we shouldn’t be too surprised that society has gone “too far”.. after all..

[quote author="Jude 1"]remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21 Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

I don’t think we should be surprised that fashion uses sex to sell clothes.  Sure there may be topless fashions at any show worth it’s salt, but people don’t actually wear that in real life.  And even if they did, dosen’t it just create a greater contrast between those who “follow mere natural instincts” and those who “keep themselves in God’s love”.

But Back to Hannah’s question:
[quote author="Hannah"]Can we not look after ourselves and grow in relationship with God and our sisters in Christ?

I’m tempted to start this with “I think” but that dosen’t help anyone.. I might be wrong.  but i would toss up 1 Cor 10 as a possible starting point for discussion:
[quote author="1 cor 10"] 23 “Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. 24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

So, in the case of something not explicily banned, like taking time on your appearance, is it permitted?.. yes.  is it constructive… ? that’s harder to tell.  Is it constructive to be unwashed, and stinky? definately not.  Is it constructive to be spending hours in front of the mirror to go to church and be a distraction to all the young gents/ladies in the congregation? I doubt it.

So there’s probably a middle ground for us to walk that should have “the other” as our focus.. what is most helpful to those around us.  I don’t think that text is useful as a club to beat people about the head with.. but it is a good rule of thumb by which we should gauge our behaviour in all the “permitted” areas of our lives.

going too far

The Dimster? The Dimster?  Outrage, outrage, outrage - now THAT is going too far!  ;) ;) :):)

If Hillsongs or Katoomba Women’s convention, or any similar thing started to have fashion shows with Modo Intimo or Roberto Cavalli lingerie on display then perhaps Margaret’s leap wouldn’t be so illogical. But that hasn’t happened yet, so hopefully it means that Christians haven’t gone “too far” in their fashion sense.

That’s what you are getting at Rowan, isn’t it? The world of today is probably no worse than the one that our faith started in, and the real isssue is not has that society gone morally astray, but are WE remaining faithful? If Margaret was implying that this is not so, then her case is not established.

Sorry Dimmy, shall stick to the formal form of address :)

yup, quite.  But I guess what I was more interested in in Hannah’s post is what do we do with fashion (and to extrapolate, our appearance in general) that is helpful/unhelpful.  While a fashion show @ WKC might be distracting from the bible teacher (it would certainly spice up the weekend), how does a Christian think about lingerie in the abstract?  should it be it strictly functional, in white cotton only?  If it’s hidden, does it make a difference to the Christian wearing it, and to the people around her?  Cosmetics, skirt lengths and earrings are all things that will ilicit comment amongst some christian circles, but are they justified?

For Guys it’s a bit harder, as for most guys showering and wearing matching socks is the limit of our sartorial achievement.  Perhaps cars are the equivalent area.  How high can you jack your hilux off the ground before you become unhelpful?  Can you squeeze another speaker into the parcel shelf of the gemini without causing your brother to stumble?

Lots of questions, no answers..  It’s really easy to get pharisaical about this, which is why I think discussing it is helpful to judge others attitudes, and therefore perhaps avoid becoming a stumbling block for them.

Whatever happened to women wearing hats in church??????

You know, I live in this place called Australia, where we have this funny thing called “freedom of expression”. I’ve heard of this other place, called Afghanistan, where they had this group of people called ‘The Telly Ban” or something, who got really upset about the way people dressed and talked and watched television so they wanted to control everything. Because religion controlled every aspect of people’s lives, it became a happy, joyful place that everyone loved and no one wanted to leave. In fact, it was so wonderful, that if you used Allah’s name in a blasphemous way, you would get killed!

Instead of having “pamper tents” for women, they had “torture tents”, especially for women suspected of immorality! AND they only had one fashion label so as not to offend people’s sensibilities!

I think we could learn so much from “The Telly Ban”, they really knew how to bring glory to God!

1. Chris B,

I’m not sure if your last post was particularly appropriate.  This thread is seeking to think about what is godly and appropriate with regards to fashion and outward adornment and so forth.  We have freedom… both as Christians… and of speech as Australians.  I am sure you are being sarcastic… however to equate this discussion with the Taliban and their (& in othr Muslim states) oppressive and forceful means of making people believe their religion is going to far.

2. Let’s stop being pharisees by asking the how far can we go with… question… and rather think about how we can best honour God and be godly.

Grace and peace
Dave Miers.

Has fashion gone too far?

Just to let everyone know a few posts related to prosperity doctrine have been edited and deleted in this forum.

The issue of prosperity doctrine was not the initial point of the discussion so dnm has created a new thread on this topic.

Sarah Barnett
Anglican Media Sydney

Let’s stop being pharisees by asking the how far can we go with… question… and rather think about how we can best honour God and be godly.

I think one way we could honour God and be godly is by not getting upset about women having the odd facial and wearing lippy. I don’t think I am going too far, I think Taliban-like attitudes are definitely in evidence in the relevant article. The author berates fashion labels for offending our sensibilities, as if art is supposed to submit to the authority of the church. The author condemns another denomination for offending her sensibilities, and implies that “pamper tents’ are unChristian, as if pleasure is to be denied. I think the article was a cynical attempt to make people feel guilty about pleasure, and to encourage an “us and them” mentality. The article seems to suggets that the mark of Christian is in their outward appearance - justifiable from scripture to some extent - but then questions the faith and practise of those who disagree with the author. It is precisely this insular, narrow-minded approach which is Taliban-like. One gets the impression that the author would like to control the dress and makeup of all people in this country. This is repugnant and offensive to the all-embracing love of God, and is, I think, an example of social conservatism rather than Christian values.

Chris B, the more you try & defend ‘Taliban-like’ as an appropriate label the less fitting it becomes. And - in my book - it was never fit in the first place.

Speaking generally, I think there are two reasons to ‘label’ groups or ideas.

The first is for explication: ‘the matter we discuss is similar to another.’ It’s to help us understand. This is to keep a discussion going by providing more light.

The second reason is to close the argument: ‘the matter we discuss is just like these ratbags.’

I can only see the latter in the two Taliban posts. If the former applies it needs to be proved by explaining the alleged parallels.

The first is for explication: ‘the matter we discuss is similar to another.’ It’s to help us understand. This is to keep a discussion going by providing more light.

I submit that the the underlying presupposition of the relevant article is that Christians ought to have control over how people dress, and that other Christians have left Christian values behind by encouraging pleasure. Hence the taliban reference. The reason I made that reference was to ask what would happen when we take these assumptions to their ultimate conclusion - that is, a society in which dress and free speech are controlled by religion.

fashion

Chris B, I think we must have read different articles. The one I read simply made a personal observation that fashion advertising was becoming risque and that the writer would in future not look at the magazines that did that; then said that they were personally outraged by the choice of “IOC” as a design label name, which I must say I am not happy with either as it is blasphemous; and then made a final personal observation about some Christian activities.  Nothing in there about the church or Christians controlling anything - merely an implication that in a democratic society our voice should be heard and that our opinion on these matters should be negative. If the majority thought the same, then presumably the market for Vogue magazine would fall and they would reconsider - that is capitalism at work, isn’t it?  I find in Margaret’s article not one hint of oppression or control or anything like it.

Your presupposition that this is where she was coming from is way off the mark and that has driven you to erroneous observations about this matter. Whatever one might think about the specifics of Margaret’s opinions about fashion, they do not deserve the accusations that you have made. You are, of course, free to make them if you want to, but it is better if they are factually based and within the spirit of the overall discussion so that they can be helpful to others. Isn’t it?