It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. For a long time when you googled modest clothing you would find a listing for the Democratic Underground entitled “Scary stuff....websites for modest christian (sic) clothing...” The Democrats posting to this blog proceeded to poke fun at, build straw men around, and deride the idea of people wanting to sell and buy modest Christian clothing.
There is no harm in them poking fun at modest clothing distributors. Democrats are the easiest people to poke fun at from a conservative perspective. Rather than be offended when liberals poke fun, learn to pity their blindness. Educated Christians should understand that unregenerate men “love darkness rather than light” and we should understand the ramifications of that truth.
It is a bit puzzling that these Democrats would feel the need to mock those who wish to look different from the rest of society. Aren't these the same people who brought us the non-conformist movement in the 1960's? Didn't the hippies teach us to reject the establishment? I guess now that they are the establishment we are all supposed to fall in line with their “enlightened” thinking.
An analysis of the posts in this strain reveals that the most vitriolic language deals with the idea that modest clothing distributors may want the law to reflect their values. Such verbiage as “Taliban,” “dynasty,” “cult,” and “fascist” grace these posts. This needs to be addressed.
After all isn't this the Democrat Party that wishes to force every American to pay for abortions? Isn't this the Democrat Party that wants to force every American to drive small cars? Isn't this the Democrat Party that wants to force every American to join a socialist health care and educational system? Isn't this the Democrat Party that has already forced every American into a socialist retirement system? Isn't this the Democrat Party that wants to force every American to burn fluorescent light bulbs? Isn't this the Democrat Party that gave us the FDA, EPA, Department of Labor, OSHA, and a myriad of other bureaucratic agencies designed to deprive Americans of freedom?
Imagine if Theonomists were able to govern America long enough to dismantle the socialist infrastructure that these Democrats, with a lot of help from Republicans, have forced on Americans, and long enough to enact all the laws delineated in the Bible. Would our society look like the Taliban? Theologians differ as to how many of the Biblical laws should apply to society at large, but the number ranges from a little over 600 at the most to as little as 200. These laws would cover every evil that man could conceive. Congress passes tens of thousands of laws every year not to mention the laws passed by state governments and the bureaucratic regulations that are not even voted on. Before the Democratic Underground starts throwing rocks at the “tyranny” of modest clothing distributors maybe they need to take a look within.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A New Easter Dress for the Upcoming Resurrection Celebration may not be a Bad Idea
In years gone by it was the tradition of all the young ladies, of all ages, to buy a new dress for the Easter Sunday celebration at their respective churches. The 21st century church has abandoned that tradition by and large, in favor of a more casual look. The intentions that led to this casual dress in the Sunday worship service was pure, but the question is left begging, has the church landed squarely in the opposite ditch in response to an obvious evil attached to this tradition?
The practice of buying the new dress at Easter in many ways had become a competition among the women of the church. Who could show up on Easter Sunday with the most elegant, yet not too gaudy, dress? For many, and certainly not all, and maybe not even most, pride and/or envy governed the purchase of the new dress for Easter Sunday. Some who could afford the latest fashions flaunted their ability to do so, and looked down their noses at those who could not. Others who could not afford expensive new dresses would accuse all who could afford the best fashions of being motivated by pride, whether they truly were or not. The tradition of buying a new dress for Easter was falling into the Marxist trap of class warfare for some.
No one should argue that the attitudes exhibited in this scenario are acceptable. Pride and envy are both grievous sins. What is arguable, is whether resorting to casual dress for the Sunday worship service was the right response to obvious evil in the midst of the church.
There certainly is no explicit command in scripture admonishing women to wear a dress to church. It would be difficult to argue that casual dress during worship is a sin. However the tradition of the “Sunday go-to-meetin'” dress was born out of a respect for the house of God. Putting on “Sunday best” was the outward manifestation of the inner conviction that God deserved our best in everything.
Maybe there is no correlation between the two, but it seems that alongside the tendency toward casual dress is an attitude of casual worship. In days gone by, those who dressed up for Sunday service out of respect for God also carried that attitude into their daily tasks. They believed that excellence and integrity in their vocation was a necessary act of obeisance toward God. In other words they believed that they were to give their best in everything because everything was subject to the authority of almighty God. Today the attitude of the average churchgoer is “what can I get out of God?” This attitude starts at the worship service and carries through to the rest of life.
It may not be necessary for a return to the era of beautiful dresses and buying a new dress every Easter. However, it is necessary to return to an attitude of giving your best to God, not only in the worship service, but in all of life. If that attitude convicts you to wear your best dress to Sunday worship, don't worry about what your neighbor thinks concerning your motivation. Simply offer your appearance to God as an offering of respect.
The practice of buying the new dress at Easter in many ways had become a competition among the women of the church. Who could show up on Easter Sunday with the most elegant, yet not too gaudy, dress? For many, and certainly not all, and maybe not even most, pride and/or envy governed the purchase of the new dress for Easter Sunday. Some who could afford the latest fashions flaunted their ability to do so, and looked down their noses at those who could not. Others who could not afford expensive new dresses would accuse all who could afford the best fashions of being motivated by pride, whether they truly were or not. The tradition of buying a new dress for Easter was falling into the Marxist trap of class warfare for some.
No one should argue that the attitudes exhibited in this scenario are acceptable. Pride and envy are both grievous sins. What is arguable, is whether resorting to casual dress for the Sunday worship service was the right response to obvious evil in the midst of the church.
There certainly is no explicit command in scripture admonishing women to wear a dress to church. It would be difficult to argue that casual dress during worship is a sin. However the tradition of the “Sunday go-to-meetin'” dress was born out of a respect for the house of God. Putting on “Sunday best” was the outward manifestation of the inner conviction that God deserved our best in everything.
Maybe there is no correlation between the two, but it seems that alongside the tendency toward casual dress is an attitude of casual worship. In days gone by, those who dressed up for Sunday service out of respect for God also carried that attitude into their daily tasks. They believed that excellence and integrity in their vocation was a necessary act of obeisance toward God. In other words they believed that they were to give their best in everything because everything was subject to the authority of almighty God. Today the attitude of the average churchgoer is “what can I get out of God?” This attitude starts at the worship service and carries through to the rest of life.
It may not be necessary for a return to the era of beautiful dresses and buying a new dress every Easter. However, it is necessary to return to an attitude of giving your best to God, not only in the worship service, but in all of life. If that attitude convicts you to wear your best dress to Sunday worship, don't worry about what your neighbor thinks concerning your motivation. Simply offer your appearance to God as an offering of respect.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Is a Jumper a Modest Dress or a Mans Robe?
When I was setting up Modest Clothing Distributors I had my daughter proof-reading and editing some text for the web site. When she finished I noticed that she had deleted the phrase modest jumper every place that I had mentioned it in the text. I exclaimed that we needed to keep that terminology. She came unhinged over that concept. She wanted to rename the jumper, something like a modest over dress, or a modesty vest, or any thing but modest jumper. I promptly explained to her about keywords and of course we kept modest jumper in the text.
The jumper is, of course, a staple for the modest clothing industry. It reminds us of an era bypassed by the hustle and bustle of women clawing alongside their male counterparts to reach the top of the ladder, and somehow we feel like modest clothing doesn't fit into that picture. The jumper, or modest over dress (as we began to call it) though, evokes images of little girls wearing a modest dress at school and play and a frilly, little, dress to church on Sunday.
But why is it called a jumper and not a modest over dress? My wife and girls surmise that maybe it's because the modest girl has to jump into the dress because there is usually no zipper or buttons. Or maybe it's because girls jumped around in the modest over dress all the time. One of my girls thought that it was because they only played jump rope when girls wore a modest dress everyday. Then the youngest guessed that it's called a jumper because they always played hop scotch in the “days of modest clothing”.
Needless to say we have had a lot of fun trying to guess why the modest over dress is called a jumper. Since dad is a quasi pointy head, I had to find out the history and etymology of the term jumper. The first thing I found was that in British English a jumper is a sweater. That was curious, because a modest over dress looks nothing like a sweater. So why is the modest over dress called a jumper? Well it seems that jumper is a derivative of the French word jupe. This seemed to be getting a little closer, because jupe means skirt. It still puzzled me though because a skirt is only half of a modest dress. Finally, I fell upon the theory that jumper ultimately derives from the Arabic jabba. Imagine my despair when I found a modest clothing web site selling jabbahs, to men. A jabba (or jabbah) is not a modest dress for women at all, but a long robe worn by Arab men.
I guess we will never really know why the modest over dress is called a jumper, but since the majority of women looking for modest clothing are going to type jumper into the search engines, at Modest Clothing Distributors, modest over dress is out and jumper is in.
The jumper is, of course, a staple for the modest clothing industry. It reminds us of an era bypassed by the hustle and bustle of women clawing alongside their male counterparts to reach the top of the ladder, and somehow we feel like modest clothing doesn't fit into that picture. The jumper, or modest over dress (as we began to call it) though, evokes images of little girls wearing a modest dress at school and play and a frilly, little, dress to church on Sunday.
But why is it called a jumper and not a modest over dress? My wife and girls surmise that maybe it's because the modest girl has to jump into the dress because there is usually no zipper or buttons. Or maybe it's because girls jumped around in the modest over dress all the time. One of my girls thought that it was because they only played jump rope when girls wore a modest dress everyday. Then the youngest guessed that it's called a jumper because they always played hop scotch in the “days of modest clothing”.
Needless to say we have had a lot of fun trying to guess why the modest over dress is called a jumper. Since dad is a quasi pointy head, I had to find out the history and etymology of the term jumper. The first thing I found was that in British English a jumper is a sweater. That was curious, because a modest over dress looks nothing like a sweater. So why is the modest over dress called a jumper? Well it seems that jumper is a derivative of the French word jupe. This seemed to be getting a little closer, because jupe means skirt. It still puzzled me though because a skirt is only half of a modest dress. Finally, I fell upon the theory that jumper ultimately derives from the Arabic jabba. Imagine my despair when I found a modest clothing web site selling jabbahs, to men. A jabba (or jabbah) is not a modest dress for women at all, but a long robe worn by Arab men.
I guess we will never really know why the modest over dress is called a jumper, but since the majority of women looking for modest clothing are going to type jumper into the search engines, at Modest Clothing Distributors, modest over dress is out and jumper is in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
