Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
No. Absolutely not.
What I have a problem with is someone telling a woman that she'll burn in Hell if she doesn't wear a dress, that her salvation is questionable if she doesn't wear a dress, or that she's not in good standing with the church if she doesn't wear a dress. I find that to be legalistic.
|
Yet, he is still telling these women to do something based on his own preferences. He believes the women who are not wearing dresses should wear a dress next time they come to service, because as you have posted they're immodest. It is now made into a religious issue based on the leader's idea of what is modest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
This pastor simply asks that women wear dresses because he believes that dresses (or skirts) are more modest than pants and that women should seek the highest degree of Christian modesty; especially if they attend corporate worship.
|
There you go. The women in the congregation who wear pants are immodest and are of low degree. Not coming up to the "highest degree" of Christain standard of modesty? Therefore if they come to practice the religion at the religious center of gathering, they should get dressed up in religious robes. But, you don't see that as legalism, because he doesn't tell them they are going to hell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Most women honor his request, even if they prefer to wear pants at home and/or at work.
|
Of course they do, because he is teaching them legalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Those who don't aren't treated badly, threatened with Hell, or berated in any way. You realize it is the pastor's request, it isn't treated like a biblical mandate.
|
You just post to see what kind of reaction you get from people. Sad.
But anyway, treated badly? Why should he or anyone else treat them badly? He is telling them to wear saffron robes, smear yellow, with a red dot on their forehead. They are told to wear a wig instead of a veil, they are told to wear the hijab before Jumu'ah at the masjid. Bro, that's legalism, that is doing something religious but not believing in it. This is what I have been saying over and over again. Telling people you love them and not loving them is legalism. Telling your father you are going out to the field and NEVER doing it is legalism. Yet, the son who said no but went anyway later was considered the true believer. You think just because they are threatened with hell it's legalism? Then you haven't a clue to what legalism really is, it is religious worship as going through the motions without having any true connections with the ONE you are supposed to be connected to? Not the man in the pulpit telling you that he would like everyone to wear white. Also forget your arguments about preachers who have no Bible but ask men to shave. You just vindicated those hombres. Because if it is ok, for your preacher to ask women to dress like Emma Bontrager before entering his temple. Therefore in the very same act a brother can ask a man to shave his beard off. Because of whatever reason he so chooses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
And it isn't about "holiness" either, it's he considers modesty a Christian discipline. Holiness is regarded as a disposition of one's heart, no matter what they're wearing.
|
It isn't about anything short of a religious leader telling people they need to wear the big buffalo hat when they come to the water buffalo lodge.
It is the highest level of Christian discipline? But it isn't in their heart? Bro, if legalism was a semi truck going down I-95 in the dark and hit you dead in the face, you still wouldn't know what legalism really means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
He's a very loving and principled UPCI pastor.
|
Of course, because he meets whatever requirement you have for the day.
If he was to tell you to do something before entering his building, then we would see your evaluation change.
Threaded Mode
