On Religious Conservatism and My Own Silliness

Last week, I attended the annual Ministers' Conference of the Churches of God (Holiness). Most readers of this blog will know what that is. Those who don't will invariably first ask, "Why is the 'Holiness' in parentheses?" Well, it's a long story, and a convoluted one. But my favorite short version of the story is that there were two churches in one town called the Church of God. One was known for the integrity and uprightness of its members. The church paid its bills. The other church was known for continually being in arrears on all manner of financial obligations, among other problems. The church that paid bills wanted to avoid being confused with the one that did not. Therefore, they attached the parenthetical word to the end of their name, and the tradition spread. According to my best sources this story isn't very accurate, but it's my favorite. I've never been one to let a little thing like accuracy or truth stand in the way of a good story.

Being raised in a Church of God (Holiness) church was a very good experience for me on the whole. The Gregory Hills COGH in Kansas City was the place I attended for the first twenty three years of my life straight. I was fortunate enough to have great pastors, and there were no ugly church splits or other church tragedies until shortly before I left.

The COGH has a tradition of very careful conservatism in matters of doctrine, and also in matters of external appearance like clothing, hair, makeup, and jewelry. Until very recently, pastors in the Churches of God (Holiness) who wore wedding rings were frowned on severely. If they wore shorts or even short-sleeved shirts, they were risking censure. If their wives cut their hair (even a trim) or wore pants (instead of skirts and dresses) or jewelry of any kind, they generally weren't kicked out (the governmental structure of the movement makes such a disciplinary move quite difficult). But such a pastor would be marginalized and never elected to any position of influence.

When I was small, I'm sure my parents tried to teach me the Scriptural principles behind these rules. I know they must have told me that part of the reason we followed the rules was that modesty was very important. They probably told me that we followed some of the rules just out of respect for others in our church. But as a kid I never listened very well, and when you're a kid everything is pretty black and white. When a lady from our church who babysat me occasionally started cutting her hair and wearing pants occasionally, I cried because I thought she was going to go to hell.

Many of my generation appreciate very much the conservatism in matters of doctrine, but not so much the "dress code." A good number of my generation can't even see the good in the doctrine because the dress code is so irksome to them. I think this is a shame, but I see where they're coming from.

When I was in high school, I realized something. The rules against jewelry and against women cutting their hair came from a few passages in I Timothy and I Peter. I Timothy 2:9 - "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..." I Peter 3:3 - "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes." The injunction against women cutting their hair comes from a somewhat convoluted interpretation of I Corinthians 11:3-15. Look it up if you're curious, but you'll be confused unless you come from the same background I do. So what was the realization I came to in high school? Did you notice that in the two verses I quoted above, there was a phrase about braided hair? Yet in our churches, the most conservative families let their daughters run around with braided hair. Hmmm... And sometimes it was elaborate, crazy braiding. The inconsistency will at once appear to the alert reader. And the inconsistencies didn't end there. They were everywhere. And as a cynical high school student with an inflated sense of my own intelligence and importance, I began to raise a stink about it, just like so many before me and after me have done.

Since then I've gotten a bit of perspective. I realize that ten years from now, I will probably again have an entirely different view of all this, but this is where I am right now. I've realized that no matter the religious tradition - "conservative" or otherwise - there is this tension of the establishment versus the coming-of-age. And this is a universal issue that occurs not just in religious circles, but in life in general. It's part of being human.

I've also realized that the tendency to turn personal preference and tradition into a sacred dogma is universal as well.

There are many versions of the story of the young woman who cooked her first beef roast and nervously served it to her mother. Her mother complimented the dish, to the daughter's relief. "Oh, mom," she gushed, "I'm so glad it came out right. I even remembered to cut off the ends before I put it in the pan, just like you always did."

The mother looked confused for a minute "Honey," said the mother, "that was because our roasting pan was too small - I cut off the ends to make it fit."

That's our natural tendency - even teenagers do it. There's a new drama teacher at the public high school here in El Dorado, and I've heard some of the teens - in particular one whose first year in drama was last year, commenting on how "Mr. Wells always did it THIS way." (Mr. Wells is the previous teacher.) And recently one of the college students who graduated from our youth group two years ago returned and visited youth group. He was disturbed by how we were doing things differently now, and grieved that we didn't have a youth center now. He said commiseratingly, "I hope things get back to the way they were soon." He didn't realize that we now have a youth group that in most ways is as strong as any we had when he was in high school. It was different, and traditions (even traditions only a year or two old) die very hard.

I'm guilty of this myself. If someone proposes an idea for a new way to do something, I'm quick to jump in and explain that "this is how we've done this before." If they fail to see the superiority of the current procedures, I'm often a bit miffed.

So I suppose I understand a bit better now why some of the COGH traditions continue, even though I confess I don't see much justification for them. It is true that many of the early COGH people were some of the most completely dedicated and devoted followers of Christ I've ever heard or read about. And many of those who are even now careful to maintain the old standards are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

I guess my conclusion from all this is that I need to be a bit less impatient with people who adhere to standards that at first seem a bit ridiculous to me. It's sometimes difficult to know how to be respectful without being hypocritical, though. And I get into these ridiculous moral dilemmas that shouldn't even be an issue.

For example, when Cindy and I serve as team sponsors at Harmony Hill Youth Camp (the COGH camp), we take off our wedding rings because they ask us to do so, and we're happy to comply. However, when I was at the Minister's Conference last week, I wasn't quite sure what to do. Several of those present still think wedding rings are unscriptural, and would probably be somewhat offended by my wearing one at such a conference. So I took off my wedding ring for the duration. I know most of you reading this are shaking your heads in disbelief. "THAT'S your moral dilemma???" you shriek. "You obviously haven't dealt with much in the moral dilemma line, then. What's wrong with you?" you continue disgustedly. "It doesn't even remotely matter!"

I know, I know. In fact, I think I was probably being a bit hypocritical and perhaps just trying to overcome a bit of a perceived prejudice against me in that group. I'm not analyzing anyone else's motives for such things, but I think mine were not quite in the right place.

My perception of the ministers present at the conference is that some of them see me as the personification of all that is wrong with the younger ministers of the COGH. Some of them think I've singlehandedly ushered the youth of our churches into condoning and even enjoying "worldly" contemporary music. This is a misconception. It also gives me far too much credit. But I think that my perception of the general opinion of me at the conference intimidated me. I did something silly and weak in an attempt to compensate. And what's more, I spent a lot of time and energy stewing about it, when almost every day I talk to teenagers whose moral dilemmas are very real and on much more important things than this.

Why I felt the need to vent about this here in this blog I'm not sure. An urge to confess, perhaps.

In more cheerful news, Cindy and I just bought our first house (we've been renting until now). We closed yesterday. We're moving this weekend. My next post will be a more cheerful writeup of said house. With pictures. Anybody want to volunteer your panel truck?