Living Church of God is once again telling grown adults what to wear to church and what kind of swimsuit will not scandalize the Millennium. Coats, collared shirts, ties, and nice slacks for men. For women: no form-fitting clothes, no high hemlines, no cleavage, no bare shoulders, no backless dresses, no crop-tops. At the pool or beach: cover the midsection, ladies. Men: no Speedos unless a European pool forces the issue. After all, you are future kings and priests. You must discern between what is appropriate and what is not.
Just not, apparently, without a memo.
This is not a new burst of pastoral concern. It is a seasonal ritual. LCG has been issuing nearly the same Feast fashion briefing for years - 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and now again - as if the flock keeps forgetting how fabric works between Atonement and Opening Night.
Armstrongism did not invent modest dress. It did invent the idea that converted adults cannot be trusted to figure it out.
Herbert W. Armstrong did not merely prefer a jacket. In May 1979 he asked, in print, whether some members might be kept out of the Kingdom of God because they showed up in jeans, overalls, or tennis shoes. "THIS IS SERIOUS!" he wrote. Church was coming into the very presence of God. He had pressed his own suit on an ironing board when he owned one pair of shoes with holes in the soles. The rest of you could at least try.
The system that followed treated clothing as a sacrament of submission. Women were not to wear pants except for sports. Skirts had to reach the knee. Hair had to cover the nape of the neck. Makeup was banned, then allowed, then banned again because Satan had supposedly used lipstick to knock the church off track. It's always the women at fault, not the narcissistic toupee-wearing ministers. Men were not to let sideburns drop below mid-ear or comb hair over the forehead. Toupees were out unless you were a minister or evangelist. If a poor new member arrived without a tie, one could be issued at the door - salvation by accessory. Ministers counseled members on cars, jobs, mates, and, in some eras, what was permitted in the marriage bed. Clothing was simply the most visible leash.
The makeup saga remains the masterpiece. In 1955 the church "ruled." In 1974 the rule loosened. In 1981 Armstrong announced that Satan had used cosmetics to derail the work, and women were to wash their faces. Headquarters church reportedly complied the very next Sabbath. Some women later admitted they took it off for services and put it back on for the world - a small, human act of sanity that was treated as double-mindedness. The Bride of Christ, Armstrong warned, would not rise to meet Jesus with painted faces. The returning Christ, one gathers, has strong opinions about Maybelline.
None of this was ever just about taste. It was about who gets to decide that you are serious. "God looks on the heart" is always the continuing mantra. Then comes the verse about hemlines. The proof-texts do honest work in other contexts - 1 Timothy 2, Matthew 22's wedding garment, "come out from among them." In Armstrongist hands, they become a standing implication: left alone, you will dress like the world, offend your neighbor, and possibly forfeit a throne. The ministry will discern for you. You will be grateful.
The swimwear paragraph is the tell. Adults who have tithed, kept the Sabbath, avoided shrimp, and scheduled vacation around Leviticus 23 are still assumed unable to distinguish a swimsuit from a statement. Love God. Love neighbor. Therefore, no Speedo, unless France insists. Cover the midsection. As future kings and priests, you must learn to tell holy from profane - starting with the difference between a tankini and a bikini, as defined this year in Charlotte.
There is a word for a religion that produces people it will not let pick their own clothes. It is not "discipleship." It is childcare with extra tithes.
The tragedy is not that someone prefers a tie on the High Days. Plenty of people dress up for things they consider sacred. The tragedy is the unblinking assumption, decade after decade, splinter after splinter, that the members are the last people on earth who can be trusted with a mirror. Herbert pressed his suit. His successors press the same point: you are almost royalty. You are almost priests. You are almost ready to judge the world.
Just not the swimwear aisle.
Not without help.
Appropriate Dress for Feast Services
While God looks on the heart, dress and outward decorum are also important (Matthew 22:8-14), and it's good to review basic principles for attire at Feast services. For men in most Western countries, coats, collared shirts, ties, and nice slacks are considered appropriate on special occasions. This may vary somewhat in tropical climates. For ladies, 1 Timothy 2:9-10 explains that dress should be "modest apparel, with propriety and moderation." Form-fitting clothing, high hemlines, necklines showing cleavage, bare shoulders, backless dresses, crop-tops, and the like are not appropriate for Church services. Our challenge as disciples of Jesus Christ is to be separate from this world and be lights to it (2 Corinthians 6:17; Matthew 5:14-16). This is especially true as we gather to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles together, multiplying our examples and reflecting the Church as a group.
What About the Pool or Beach?
Swimwear at the Feast of Tabernacles should be modest and in good taste. We are to be guided by the two great commandments-to love God and love our neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39)-so as not to offend God or our neighbor in our attire at the Feast. Accordingly, ladies' swimwear at the Feast should be modest and cover the midsection, and men should not wear Speedo-type suits unless pool facility rules specifically require them, as is the case in some European countries. As future kings and priests, we have a responsibility to discern between what is appropriate and what is not-and to live accordingly (Ezekiel 22:26).
3 comments:
Doug Winnail, the man who has been seen wearing cowboy boots to Sabbath services, has the nerve to lecture others about appropriate dress for services? That's rich!
Oh, I forgot. He's also their top marital counselor despite living in violation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now this is all starting to make sense.
Therefore, no Speedo, unless France insists
Doesn't LCG teach that we are to obey God's law when it conflicts with man's law?
If LCG members in France are allowed to wear Speedos, then they must not be against God's law. And if they aren't against God's law, what business does LCG have imposing their man-made standard on brethren outside of France?
If LCG brethren around the world are disobeying God by wearing Speedos, surely the LCG brethren in France should take a stand for God and also refuse to wear Speedos. Unless this is all about control and not about God's law.
Won't future kings and priests know how to count? Three feasts is not seven feasts.
Post a Comment