Leaderboard

Isn't God more concerned with hearts than with garments?

only by grace do we rise above personally insulting offenses. i would suggest this pastor needs to present messages on the harm of being judgmental of visitors to the church, and i would inform the pastor of this event. then i would deeply apologize to my spouse and possibly arrange for the pastor to apologize on behalf of the well meaning but insulting member. this is not good when members are hurtful to those coming to church. facetiously my thought is... i would like to see thirty visitors crowd this church Sabbath morning in jeans... give this member a work out then crash his program by letting him see how much God loves them and is so happy they came to visit at His house. We all need to be stretched, God's love is greater than we know.

The question did not come across as should we want to make a pretense or extravagant display. Or to have this strict dress code that is checked at the door. In any issue an extreme example and argument can be made . No one should be shunned, turned away or made to feel less than because of the way they are dressed.Sometime ago we had three strangers walk into our church . Not very clean, enough gold chains to make a egyptian mummy jealous. Pack of cigarettes rolled up in their T-shirt sleeve. They were greeted like everyone else and shown to a pew with other members, seemed to sleep thru most of the service.Invited to stay for potluck which they did. What brought them to church is anyones guess but it didnt really matter. There are always incidences like that to be used as an excuse or reason for any old thing is good enough for God. He doesnt care how I look. But some do think the attitude that causes the careless approach does matter. Many people do not have a church background and really dont give it a lot of thought. If my boys could put the thought and effort to be presentable on a date or other activity they could do at least as much for something far more important. Anything is good enough for God didnt cut it.

I see both sides of this argument. On the one hand, I have been often disappointed to see such casual clothing as is often worn to church around here. On the other hand, I think people understand the reality that no matter how finely they adorn their outward appearance, God sees right through it all. It almost seems hypocritical to put on the same show for God that one might attempt for a job interview--God sees not as man sees, for man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. We should dress respectfully for God, but there is a limit to what is respectful to an all-seeing and all-knowing God. There is no need of making a pretense, nor to dress with extravagant display. Furthermore, what one considers proper attire, another might disdain or even consider to be of heathen origins (e.g. the necktie). None should set himself or herself up as the criterion for others in matters of dress, nor should we judge others upon it. James chapter 2 has some words about this.

It boggles my mind when a person dresses in his best attire for an interview for a job, or meet some low-level dignitary but puts on less than his best to meet the One to whom the sinless angels bow.

oh c'mon now. The duck-billed platypus was one of God's ways of having fun with His creation. When explorers first saw it, they thought the platypus to be one of the most ridiculous, yet awesome quirks of nature. In a way, it *can* be thought of as a satirical creation, because it shows how something that looks ridiculous is actually an endearing creature. That's one of the things that satire does: it takes a favored view, either positive or negative, and shows how silly that original view could be. It doesn't mean the *object* of the satire is silly — just the notions that *we* tend to project onto the object might be silly or illogical.

Gary K: The Biblical way, as you stated it, applies to the two individuals directly involved, which in this case is S. and his wife. On the assumption that the wife will not want to confront, S should turn it over to the system. The system has rules of procedure and S should let someone who is assumed to be fair and objective take over the situation. It is not the job of S to confront the individual. Both Green and I have given advice on this. NOTE: Again, as I have said, it may be that the spiritual interests of the wife are best served by letting it go. If the individual typically reacts to people in that way, it will happen again and others can respond as appropriate.

With GM being a former pastor and leader.... ....I believe he gives solid advice. I really like his position on 'not fixing'.

There is some value is what Green said. I suspect that many women would not want to return to such a congregation. My real mission would be to do the best for my wife, if I was in that situation. I would likely consider that the best for her would be to get her into another congregation if possible. That would be my mission, not to fix the congregation. If I were able to get my wife into another congregation, I would then consider what Green has suggested, as long as I thought that I could accomplish that without spiritual harm to my wife. However, in addressing the local congregation, I would attempt to work through the local pastor, with that pastor taking the lead, rather than going over the head of the pastor and directly to the Church Board. Right or wrong, the local pastor commonly has great influence over the Church Board. I would want to have the pastor working with me. In military terms, winning a battle may result in losing the war. All to often we can get ourselves into situations where we defeat our fundamental mission by doing that. I would carefully consider whether or not to take such an issue to the ministerial secretary. It might be the thing to do. And, it might not be? In any case, Green has added value to the conversation.

There is no easy answer to your questions. Congregations have personalities. Individual congregations may not be able to meet the spiritual needs of a specific person. I would probably look for another congregation to attend, regardless of whether on not my wife went with me.

Gerry C said below: Sorry, Gerry, that is not true today in many situations to include some that are high paying. Recently, I had the opportunity to observe a group of people interviewing for a well paying job in a high-tech industry. All were wearing casual clothing. Also, I am aware of a situation where Microsoft had selected a good number of people for a position. All who were selected had been casually dressed at the interview.

My little dog has been limping around for a month or so, He is a mixed breed and all the breeds suffer from both arthritic hip problems and patellar luxation. From his symptoms I figured he most likely had patellar luxation for he is too young to really be suffering from arthritis. I was looking around for some way to help him and ran across Cosequin. It was highly recommended for arthritis, but not for patellar luxation. We started him on Cosequin 1 week ago and within 3 days he was showing a fair amount of improvement. His limp had gone from full time to part time. Today he is bouncing around like he did at a year old. He is jumping up onto the bed and running around on the ice and snow without even a trace of a limp. Cosequin DS just seems to work miracles. I read the comments on it from the Walmart site and the only people I saw that complained about it were those not smart enough to buy the chewable type. They were complaining about having to shove tablets down their dog's throat. Well, if they had been smart enough to buy the chewable variety that wouldn't have been a problem. Even with those kinds of complaints 95% of the ratings were for 5 stars. My dog loves the stuff. I ask him if he wants a goody and he is spinning around in circles and dancing all over the place as soon as he sees the bag they come in. I cannot recommend this stuff highly enough. You have an arithritic dog? Give him Cosequin. It works wonders. They have it for cats too, I think.

I object! I most strenuously object! That's a purely anti-Irish sentiment, if I've ever read one!

I would be very surprised if the SDAC did not come out as the most diverse no matter what methodology is used because of our emphasis on "into all the world" mission.

Joemo, I beg to differ. Were the demoniacs at Gergesa released from their bondage? What about the man who brought his son to Jesus after the night of transfiguration? Was the boy released? Just because the devil can possess someone doesn't mean they can never be saved. The Bible has a lot of examples of that. It is those in their so-called right minds who use skepticism to reject God's word and who are completely satisfied with who they are that are in the greatest danger of never being saved. Why? Because in their own eyes they are good enough.

NEVER!!! As long as we have breath, we are able to be saved. It is wrong to say that God cannot do whatever He wants. If He wants to call someone or save them, He can! God is more powerful than ANY other spiritual being; and He will NEVER give up on us! The problem is, we give up on God.

I would tend to think not. Of course, there is the real born again and those who believe they are born again. For one truly born again, it follows that Jesus thru the Holy spirit abides in them. Kinda hard to be demon possessed and Christ possessed at the same time. How all that works out is something to be known in heaven. Unfortunately, we will be subject to temptation and influence from demons for as long as this age should last. Response to that temptation and influence will vary by the person.

It is easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole world.

Be modest. Be clean. Put on the whole armor of God and wear Christ's righteousness.

I suppose it is not us human beings' judge others. Mrs. White wrote that we should have a special cloth set aside for the Sabbath.