Acts20.com NEW Acts-Celerate

I was reading about Ray and Wilma Yoder’s attempt to visit every single Cracker Barrel in the U.S. I could tell that Mrs. Yoder must be a holiness woman. Maybe old-time Church of God, but more likely Oneness or some such.That being said, I think we dismiss the value of outward adornment too often and too much. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that if we didn’t dismiss it–that is, if we held that it was valid in telling us a little something about someone–then it might inconvenience us.Can a person dress in what we call holiness style and not at all be holy? Yep, sure can.But for that matter, can a person be seem to be the best of Christians…and not really be? Sure.So here’s where it gets interesting….How many women at the beach wearing thongs do you imagine are sincere Christians? (Yes, women bear the burdens of outward adornment far more than men. It’s probably always been that way…since even the Bible gives us more about women’s dress than men’s apparel.)What about a woman wearing a very low-cut blouse and short-shorts? These are somewhat stereotypical things that are mentioned when one is railing against worldly dress, but there is a point here: This sort of apparel DOES cause us to ponder whether this person lives very separate from the world.We all instinctively understand that there are things that, in an abstract discussion, are not necessarily sinful (e.g., smoking, drinking, certain bad words, etc.), and yet IN PRACTICE we do seem to consider those who do such things as to be a step down the ladder from where we think that Christians should appear. In a nutshell, adornment is a BEHAVIOR. It is an ACTION that merits some sort of response if it is too extreme in either direction. The old-line holiness woman certainly got her share of looks and rolled eyes, I’m sure. The new-line folks…well, they sometimes raise a few eyebrows themselves.So, if a person wearing a thong at a public beach would be rather out of line with what we deem suitable attire, then that means that dress DOES matter (at least to some extent). And if it does matter, then it stands to reason that if a thong is felt to be too extreme, then more modest apparel is called for. And yet when some are, um, TOO MODEST (is that even a thing?) we tend to lump them legalists and Pharisees. Is that fair?How modest is TOO modest? How immodest it TOO immodest? The point to it all is that a discussion on outward adornment is something we should engage in with care and concern, instead of just dismissing the others out of hand as worldly or legalistic. I am wondering if maybe the way we used to view outward adornment was more in line with what is truly right…even if the attitudes we used to enforce that view were out of line?