beards and such.

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:37:34 -0400, you wrote:

>  I mean when you have people like the Walt Disney
>Company forbidding the wearing of beards because they appear "unwholesome,"
>what does that tell you the church's view on it should be?  It's kind of like
>this deal with young guys wearing their caps backwards.  Is the wearing of
>the cap like that itself wrong?  Of course not.  Yet today, secular
>authorities--such as security at various malls--forbid youth to wear their
>hats like that, because of the image it conveys (i.e., gangs and what have
>you).  And yet too many times, we in the church say nothing about it!  Where
>is our stand for separation?  (Sorry...excuse my tirade).

Great tirade! 

You know Walt Disney ought to be following us, in fact .. not us him,
but thats the situation as you have well said.

Related story goes back 3 years ago. A woman laywer had come to the
courts to request relief from a requirement by her firm (actually her
superiors were women too) that she wear a dress while employed there.

The court concluded  that it was indeed recognized by society that the
proper female attire was a dress or skirt, but fashions were subject
to change. It sadly annouced that when looking at society to determine
whether such change had actually taken place, it looked to the
churches as the dictator of appropriate attire and there found no
evidence that such a standard was being maintained.

So, the court reluctantly ruled in favor of the woman to the
consternation of those female employers who sought a standard.

Here is a perfect example. The world looks to the church. It may
argue, but it looks to the church for authority.