When the story of a woman parishioner who was told her dressing was not appropriate for attending mass made it to the local newspaper, I was confounded for she was, in my opinion, decently dressed in every sense of the word.
It was a modern sam foo (Oriental top and pants) with three-quarter instead of full-length pants. Rather cute, I thought, and I could not quite see why it did not pass muster.
The debate about dressing (which preceded the article), what is appropriate and what is not, has been going on for years with no real outcome, as yet. There may be one soon if the Archdiocese of Singapore does decide to respond seriously on this issue, and I sincerely hope they do not.
First off, I do think there are more worthwhile issues to debate about than clothing - like global warming or social injustice and what can responsible Catholics do about it - although I do agree that some people are clad inappropriately for mass, albeit a minute percentage of the congregation.
We are also kind of missing the point when we start to criticize and pass judgement on the sartorial choices of fellow churchgoers. Too-revealing or sloppy dressing may be a religious fashion faux pas but it is no sin.
And surely what is more important is that the person actually made it to church with a heart for worship than what the person is wearing.
During the last Bible Timeline talk, Jeff Cavins gave me new insights on what being a Pharisee meant. The word itself means to separate and the Pharisees were originally set apart due to weakness, which they instead wore as a badge of honour.
The Pharisees took pride in fulfilling the Law of Moses to the letter, dotting every single I and crossing every last T, forgetting that what was most important was the spirit of the Law. Hence they despised Jesus who had expert knowledge of the Law and could challenge their exacting interpretation of the law while breaking the rules out of love and compassion.
He who dined with prostitutes who were probably immodest in dress and behaviour. Scandalous and unacceptable.
Cavins challenged us by asking us did we separate ourselves like the Pharisees, not living in the world as we are not of this world? Is Christianity about exclusivity, about what we do not or cannot do, or it is more about empowerment and what we do and can do?
Do we want people to know Jesus through us in a way that inspires love, hope and ultimately faith, or do we want them to stay away, put off by our spiritual bad breath?
Certainly there is a right and wrong way of doing things, a way that brings us closer or further away from God, but the best and only way to lead others to God is through Jesus and His loving and creative ways.
It is perhaps most appropriate then to dress ourselves in Christ's humility, compassion, openness of heart and wisdom.
It was a modern sam foo (Oriental top and pants) with three-quarter instead of full-length pants. Rather cute, I thought, and I could not quite see why it did not pass muster.
The debate about dressing (which preceded the article), what is appropriate and what is not, has been going on for years with no real outcome, as yet. There may be one soon if the Archdiocese of Singapore does decide to respond seriously on this issue, and I sincerely hope they do not.
First off, I do think there are more worthwhile issues to debate about than clothing - like global warming or social injustice and what can responsible Catholics do about it - although I do agree that some people are clad inappropriately for mass, albeit a minute percentage of the congregation.
We are also kind of missing the point when we start to criticize and pass judgement on the sartorial choices of fellow churchgoers. Too-revealing or sloppy dressing may be a religious fashion faux pas but it is no sin.
And surely what is more important is that the person actually made it to church with a heart for worship than what the person is wearing.
During the last Bible Timeline talk, Jeff Cavins gave me new insights on what being a Pharisee meant. The word itself means to separate and the Pharisees were originally set apart due to weakness, which they instead wore as a badge of honour.
The Pharisees took pride in fulfilling the Law of Moses to the letter, dotting every single I and crossing every last T, forgetting that what was most important was the spirit of the Law. Hence they despised Jesus who had expert knowledge of the Law and could challenge their exacting interpretation of the law while breaking the rules out of love and compassion.
He who dined with prostitutes who were probably immodest in dress and behaviour. Scandalous and unacceptable.
Cavins challenged us by asking us did we separate ourselves like the Pharisees, not living in the world as we are not of this world? Is Christianity about exclusivity, about what we do not or cannot do, or it is more about empowerment and what we do and can do?
Do we want people to know Jesus through us in a way that inspires love, hope and ultimately faith, or do we want them to stay away, put off by our spiritual bad breath?
Certainly there is a right and wrong way of doing things, a way that brings us closer or further away from God, but the best and only way to lead others to God is through Jesus and His loving and creative ways.
It is perhaps most appropriate then to dress ourselves in Christ's humility, compassion, openness of heart and wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment