Greetings!
Due to the inability of some (ahem-Narrow-cough) to abide by the rules of engagement, I have decided to continue my thoughts on the topic of what constitutes or diminishes “outward holiness” on a separate thread. I specifically focus on the most familiar issues such as dress, appearance, cosmetics, etc.
Recently, while perusing the Articles of Faith on the WPF website, I noted something rather significant. It appears that their authors have been able to cleverly craft a document that ties together core spiritual truths supported by pertinent scripture with arguments that don’t quite stand up to good reason.
The WPF stance on cosmetics is a good place to begin. Are we to accept their proposition that make-up is inherently evil by virtue of its artificiality? If we can agree that make-up is a technology (which it is), should we then assume that evil may lurk in other bits of technology as well, like, say, my lawnmower? Is something (artificial) like a toy lawnmower even more pernicious? Furthermore, it is stated that (they or God?) view the wearing of make-up as an attempt to induce beauty. What does this vague wording designate? Is enhancing one’s physical person immoral? I’m sure the consensus would be mixed if confronted. Is this a logical oversight on their part or the establishment of devices to gauge the spiritual condition of believers who choose to attend this fellowship? Unfortunately, the Jezebel argument falls terribly to the fallacy of guilt by association.
What about Jewelry? Is it inherently evil based on its value or its shininess? Sorry Mr. Rolex, you’re in a no-win situation. Costliness is relative, so it must be shininess. Who knew that the real evils on television were those advertisements for Colgate and toilet cleaner?
Finally, let us be clear about modesty. Holiness is harmonious to (but does not equal) modest apparel. Anybody can wear modest clothing, but scriptures indicate God as the only one who can establish true holiness (
1 Thess. 3:13). At least there are no absolutes mentioned in this piece with regard to said topic. Then we would have to examine if it is really possible for one’s holiness and “glory” to fluctuate based on length of clothing.
I didn’t intentionally mean to step on anyone’s personal convictions, and if it is perceived that way, I apologize. I only know that sometimes, “convictions” can be a useful term by some as a last ditch effort to preserve the effectiveness of these ex post facto regulations. In my humble opinion, some “spiritual nudges” and "revelations" can actually be attributed to behavioral conditioning, social conformity, and groupthink.
What think ye, group?
Threaded Mode
