Poll: Modesty

[Josh]

Before we became plain, we discussed how on earth plain dress could be modest~ with the attention it attracted.

We lived on the west coast & soon started dressing plain (what it meant to us 15 years ago- long skirts, very simple head coverings, etc) and we were started at, openly commented on, and followed to our vehicle with questions so often we kept cases of books in the back to hand out.

The books were: “The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down” by David Bercot, “Through the Eye of a Needle” by Roger Hertzler, and the workbook “The Faith Worth Dying For.”

Where we live now, we can dress plain as we want & no one bats an eye.

Did you ever run into Jason Logalusa's group out there? (My wife is from California too)

[GoodGirl]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

[Soloist]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Did you go to an Eastern church out there?

[Ernie]

Before we became plain, we discussed how on earth plain dress could be modest~ with the attention it attracted.

We lived on the west coast & soon started dressing plain (what it meant to us 15 years ago- long skirts, very simple head coverings, etc) and we were started at, openly commented on, and followed to our vehicle with questions so often we kept cases of books in the back to hand out.

The books were: “The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down” by David Bercot, “Through the Eye of a Needle” by Roger Hertzler, and the workbook “The Faith Worth Dying For.”

Where we live now, we can dress plain as we want & no one bats an eye.

Could you write up 500-1000 words about this experience? I want to use it to encourage people to plant churches out west.

[Pelerin]

I’d be interested in reading Neto’s thoughts on #3.

[GoodGirl]

Could you write up 500-1000 words about this experience? I want to use it to encourage people to plant churches out west.

Sure, I’d be honored to. We still lament the huge mission field we left! You know me~ the challenge will be to get it short enough. Just give me a week or so.

We were close to Rochester Mennonite (who we greatly appreciated once we found them), but they seemed too official & formidable (?) to many, and I think we were the middle ground, if that makes sense.

[GoodGirl]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Did you go to an Eastern church out there?

No, but my husband would go out for breakfast with some of the men from Rochester, once we found them.

I didn’t get too close, because we knew we wanted to homeschool & also I was busy with all of our little ones.

[GoodGirl]

In case anyone finds this funny, we would see the Rochester Mennonite women shopping, and could not for the life of us figure out why they had Doritos & Mt Dew in their carts.

We thought they had a better system or something.

[Ernie]

I hesitated on #6.

6. Some ideas and values in life can be arrived at intuitively or by observation, and the Bible does not need to specifically address it, in order for the thing to be true or good. (However, we should not make such conclusions equal with the teaching we find in the Bible.)

What does it mean to hold to a teaching, but not put it on par with teaching of Scripture? Does this mean that it is to be represented as:
a.) a secondary doctrine?
b.) an application of a Biblical principle, either by direct application at the primary level, or as a secondary application?
c.) an item in the congregation's guidelines?
d.) an appeal from the pulpit, or in private conversation?

These are good questions. I do not think we should establish as doctrine, something that the Bible does not say, nor something that could be interpreted different ways in the New Testament.
For example, the NT talks about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in various places. I think we should stop right there.
I was once part of a church whose doctrinal statement said, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit". I suggested that we change this to be what the New Testament says. They agreed and it was changed. The underlined is going beyond what the NT says. I don't have a problem with people believing the underlined, but I don't think it should be held at the same level as what the NT says.

When it comes to practical applications of NT principles and commands, I have no problem with a group of Christians agreeing together how they are going to put a teaching into practice. As long as they don't withhold communion, the holy kiss, and the right hand of fellowship from those who have a different application. And as long as they don't all agree to do something that God does not want them to do.
This is very different from a group of people agreeing that certain NT principles or commands are not for our day.

If the common expression "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and conduct" is true, then how does this mesh with the idea of adding things which we feel are 'valid inferences"?

If everyone in a group is focused on obeying the teachings of the NT that are painfully easy to understand, this will take care of most disagreements. It is the things that are harder to understand that cause the most disagreements.

I guess I would need to hear what you think of when you say "valid inferences".

[Ernie]

In case anyone finds this funny, we would see the Rochester Mennonite women shopping, and could not for the life of us figure out why they had Doritos & Mt Dew in their carts.

We thought they had a better system or something.

Were you trying to do without these things when you started embracing "the plain lifestyle"?