Quote:
Originally Posted by rrford
I think her words have to be put in historical, as relating to timing, context. She is speaking of the early days of the movement from her present day situation..
Could it be that her view at the beginning was not what it was at the time of the writing? I do not see her as criticizing the holiness of dress, rather just making an observation of two different times in the evolvement of the movement.
From that view, both her recollections and Bro. Epley's would also be correct. JMO.
|
She is clearly making a statement against holiness preachers here RR ... I'm sorry ... she is pining about the good ol' days and taking a dig at those who believe in "plainess of dress"....
to try to separate her retelling w/ of the early movement and what she saw later in the 30's-50's is not intellectually honest. We view the past ... based on our present.
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day.....silks....satins.... jewels or whatever they happened to possess.
They were very smartly turned out so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducive in the early years.
It was not
until long after, when
former holiness preachers had become part of us that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
Although entire sanctification was preached at the beginning of the movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the holiness movement characteristics.
Nothing was ever said about apparel, for what
everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seeming never occurred to any of us."
Threaded Mode
