Suit Required

[Shellie]

However, there are some obvious differences in intention behind those.

This is what I'd like to discuss. You know that I meant no harm in my question to you. What I would like to bring to the surface is the root of "offense".

Could the REAL issue not be things that bring offense but instead those that are too easily offended?

[Paully_44]

Could the REAL issue not be things that bring offense but instead those that are too easily offended?

=D>=D>

nail on the head!

[Pastor Bill]

OK, I think more of a big deal is being made about this than necessary.

PG had come to the Assembly before, and even stood in the pulpit there not in a suit. As SO, the expectations have changed, and he is bowing his personal preferences to meet them. PG correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has said, "Hey either wear a suit or you're not going to be welcome" Expectations are just that. I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it. If we did less, it would not be sin, and would probably not be a big issue, but sometimes there are more important things to address than clothing expectations.

[Shellie]

Pastor Bill wrote:

I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it.

So where do we stop doing what others expect?

[RamboPreacher]

Pastor Bill wrote:

I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it.

So where do we stop doing what others expect?

depends on what mood I am in that day.

[paul]

Pastor Bill wrote:

I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it.

So where do we stop doing what others expect?

depends on what mood I am in that day.

Depends, what your desire is to the people you are ministering to. I can go to some Islands in the pacific ( not hawaii) they will allow me in the pulpit barefooted and in a skirt, but I bett not enter the pulpit with a suit coat and tie. I can take the coat off only after being in the pulpit.

I love the barefooted concept. I preach barefooted most of the time in India, africa, burma and a few other places on occasions.

Makes me feel like i'n in Kentucky or Tenn. Oh that was a slip

[Pastor Bill]

Pastor Bill wrote:

I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it.

So where do we stop doing what others expect?

I guess that's a personal boundary you have to set. It's not about it being right or wrong, more about what your desire is. Pick your battles. For me personally, I don't mind wearing a suit, if I wanted to dress differently, I don't think it would be that big of a deal either. For PG, it is much more out of character for him, an added expense, and he may feel differently, but the expectations for him may be stronger than what I deal with as well.

I seriously doubt they would make him step down over a clothing choice, but if he choses to not to challenge those expectations, then it might just not be as big of a deal to him as people are making it out.

[Pastor Bill]

Pastor Bill wrote:

I generally wear a suit on Sundays, and my wife wears skirts or dresses, not because we have to, but because we know there are some that expect it.

So where do we stop doing what others expect?

depends on what mood I am in that day.

Yes, there's always that too!

[Mat]

removed

[Full Quiver]

if a group of leaders dressed in suits walked past a woman and several kids in a minivan with a flat tire, how many would be willing to ruin their suit and get sweaty to change the tire?

that's easy. They would APPOINT others to do the job.

I think Chris' point is that an organization that hinges it's existence and integrity on the changes that have been made over the past 20 years is SILLY to require suits in meetings, especially closed door meetings.

I really don't think Chris was trying to speak for Gary or go to bat for him in any way but to merely point out how laughable religious orgs. can be.

Fell free to correct me if I am incorrect Poimen.

[RamboPreacher]

pretty sure it's been said, but expectation does not equate requirement.

[one love]

that's easy. They would APPOINT others to do the job.

that is funny Bro

[fezzik]

I have a solution to everyone's problems...from the luggage issue to dry cleaning:

Gary should just rent a tuxedo or three in Nashvegas for the week. He'll be the class of the party..errr...meetings. He can pick them up on the way from the airport. He can return them at the end of the week. Plus, if he gets bored, he could crash a wedding or two...might be a good way to eat for free to balance out the rental costs.

Where's the emoticon that pats yourself on the back? I have one good idea every year or so...too bad I probably wasted it on this.

[Poimen]

I think Chris' point is that an organization that hinges it's existence and integrity on the changes that have been made over the past 20 years is SILLY to require suits in meetings, especially closed door meetings.

I really don't think Chris was trying to speak for Gary or go to bat for him in any way but to merely point out how laughable religious orgs. can be.

Fell free to correct me if I am incorrect Poimen.

EXACTAMUNDO!

[RamboPreacher]

except that I didn't read anything about requiring suits. I am the newbee here, so really have no dog in the fray, but to make the equation of those kinds of changes and then saying that it is a requirement to wear a suit is not really an accurate statement.

maybe the expectations are based in professionalism, or something else - don't know. but that paradigm is not even comparable to some of the recent changes, mentioned.

I have had discussions with a few from the concerned group (they still called them self that, though when I asked about TCOG, they said yea, that's us - even though their membership is still with our, COGOP, church - though - they attend their own church now).

The D&R issue came up and they told me what COGOP believes, and when I tried to explain that "we" were not condoning divorce- they kept coming back with telling me that I was wrong, and insisting what "we" (COGOP) believed.

all that to say that they had in their mind made up about what a different group believes, even though it was incorrect. I realize that the example given is off-topic, but it was brought up to represent my opinion and point here, that requirement does not equate requirement, no matter that someone outside the group says it does.