by Edward Ross
Proper Christian Clothing
God clearly states that "a person's character is judged by his style of dress," for "the outside appearance is an index to the heart," so "in most cases, submission to the gospel requirements will demand a decided change in the dress." --(Ed 248; 1 T 136; 6 T 96.) Modesty must prevail!
About 6,000 years ago the great loving God, who covers Himself "with light," created Adam and Eve to be modest and lovingly obedient before the whole universe, mirrors to reflect His glory. --(Ps. 104:2; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Cor. 4:9.)
Thus created in His image and likeness, "the sinless pair wore no artificial garments; they were clothed with a covering of light and glory, such as the angels wear." --(Gen. 1:76-27; PP 45. Cf. MH 461-2; COL 310-11; 8 T 255-6.)
"But when they yielded to the tempter, the light departed from them," they lost their "garments of holiness" (MH 462), and "they endeavored to fashion for themselves a covering; for they could not, while unclothed, meet the eye of God and holy angels" (PP 57). Yes, proper length clothing was expected and required—God still insisted upon modesty—, so "God proceeded to make long garments of skin...to clothe them." --(Gen. 3:21 NW; cf. Amp. Males should be modest also, for females too have eyes and temptations!)
Immodesty and sinfulness go hand-in-hand, so what length of dress did God keep before His chosen people? Looking at Ex. 28:32 we find that modesty apparently ex tends from the top of the shoulders to well below the knees, for "the robe of the common priest...extended nearly to the feet." --(PP 350.) And in heaven Jesus was seen clothed in a garment of light "reaching down to his feet," as were "the 144,000 .,. And they were all clothed with a glorious white mantle from their shoulders to their feet." --(Rev. 1:13 NIV; 1 T 61 and EW 16-7.) Let us constantly practice modesty now, that His light will cover us then, for every SDA should "strive...to be among the 144,000." --(Review, 3/9/1905, and 7 BC 970.) "Our appearance in every respect should be characterized by neatness, modesty, and purity." --(6 T 96.)
Again, our Lord commands "women to be modest and sensible about their clothes and to dress properly..., as is proper for women who claim to be religious." --(1 Tim. 2:9-10 GNB.) So what length of dress is not "modest" or appropriate? In 1 T 464 God points out that a dress "reaching about to the knees" is an "extreme short dress" which must be shunned! Therefore converted women are not only to have the upper portion of their bodies well covered, but here our Lord is plainly commanding that feminine knees be completely coveted, that truly Christian women must wear clothing that- extends well below the knees . And, lovingly says our Saviour, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." --(John 14:15.)
Please mark these words with care: God has a controversy with women who encourage lust and sin by their immodest, revealing clothing! Low cut necklines, sheer blouses, short. skirts, shorts, modern swimming suits, etc., all fall in this sinful class and must be rejected!
Summertime is an especially good time to test one's consecration to Jesus. Wearing such articles as halter-tops and shorts or skimpy form-fitting swimming suits, a "Christian" may rationalize that "it's hot," "I'm swimming," or "I'm on the beach," to excuse their lack of modesty. The wearer is not only a bad example but shows an unloving lack of concern about the effect upon others. "Well, it's not my fault if men can't keep their eyes off me and on the Lord. They just aren't spiritual enough. Why should I have to change just because they are weak?"
Such a one should not say, "Well, I may look worldly, but Jesus knows that in my heart I'm not," because one's outward appearance usually reflects one's inward condition .
The SP says, "Cleanse the fountain, and the streams will be pure. If the heart is right,...your dress...will...be right." "The working of the Spirit of God inwardly will show a change of dress outwardly." "A modest, godly woman will dress modestly." --(1 T 158; UMT 92; 4 T 643.) Repeating, "A modest, godly woman will dress modestly." --(Review, 11/17/1904.) So what are we to believe about those who do not dress modestly?
In the 1860's, while ruling against a long skirt that touches the ground as un-healthful, the SP advocated "a convenient, modest, and healthful style" of reform dress reaching from the top of the shoulders to well below .the knees, ending "about nine inches from the floor." --(Review, 10/8/1867; 1 T 521; cf. Review, 4/14/1868.)
At the same time, however, the SP was careful to point out that a female's legs need to be kept as warm as a male's, thus pants were authorized to be worn by SDA females under the reform dress (skirt). This God-given principle has never been revoked; it was appropriate then, it is appropriate now. Pants (which includes slacks, jeans, peddle pushers, overalls, etc.) were not to replace the skirt the skirt or dress must not be removed! but pants were to be permitted by God under the well-below-the-knee skirt. And "be particular to have the pants and dress of the same color and material." --(1 T 522.)
"There is no reason why the feet and limbs of your girls should not be...warmly clad Your girls should wear . . . dresses ... In cold weather they should wear warm flannel or cotton drawers, which can be placed inside the stockings. Over these should be warm lined pants, which may be full, gathered into a band, and neatly button around the ankle, or taper at the bottom and meet the shoe. Their dress should reach below the knee... The shoes should be thick-soled, and perfectly comfortable. Women...need to have their limbs and feet clad as warmly as men.
The dress should...be short enough ["a few inches" from the floor--Review, 10/8/1867] to clear the filth of the sidewalk and street Whatever may be the length of the dress , females should clothe their limbs as thoroughly as the males. This may be done by wearing lined pants gathered into a band and fastened about the ankle, or made full. and tapering at the bottom; and these should come down long enough to meet the shoe.” “What style of dress can be neater, more modest, and more becoming girls from the ages of 5 to 14 years, than ours? …. We recommend the reform dress to all. We urge [force]it upon none…. It should reach to within 8 or 9 inches from the floor.” (2 SM 471, 477-9; Review, 4/14/1868
H ence were SDA girls and women urged by God to retain and wear dresses, not give up dresses. If a female feels pants are a necessity because of the climate or the nature of her work or exercise or recreation, let her wear them— under a below-the- knee matching dress, for pants with a skirt reaching above the knees have been condemned by God through the SP.
If she doesn't want to wear pants with dress, she can wear a below-the-knee CULOTTE (split skirt), under which in cooler weather can be worn long, thick stockings or leotards, along with good shoes or boots, which will be warm yet preserve femininity.
To be comfortable and healthy in colder weather, one young SDA lady recommended "long-sleeved dresses, with a hemline below the knee, over matching slacks, and long boots. For Sabbath services, a longer dress over long underwear."
But females are not to look like males—there is to be a plain difference in clothing!—thus pants are not to be worn by females except under a below-the-knee dress, for such a female would be an "abomination" to God.
This was specifically brought to view in the 1860's when an outfit called the "American Costume" that was somewhat similar to present-day pants suits was being adopted by women. The SP briefly describes and condemns it; "It consists of a vest, pants, and 'a dress resembling a coat and reaching about halfway from the hip to the knee." "The dress...of the 'American Costume 1 ...does not reach to the knee. I need not say that this...dress was...too short." "I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deut. 22:5: 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,...for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." God would not have His people adopt the [American Costume]... It is immodest ap parel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ. There is an in creasing tendency to have women in their dress [clothing] and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination." --(1 T 465; Review, 10/8/1867; 1 T 421.)
Some today, as at that time, seemingly have not listened to the SP. For in stance, The Quiet Hour ECHOES of April 1976, p. 13, says: "Modest, properly fit ting pants designed for women and worn in the proper circumstances by women can hardly be a violation of any Bible principles." The Insight magazine of 9/2/1980, p. 11, has an ad for the Kettering College showing an adult male and female dressed in the same type of T-shirt and pants. Page 24 in the Review of 2/15/1979 is an ad for the Pacific Union College showing posed male and female students all wearing pants. Various other SDA publications also purposely portray wrongly-clad girls and women, thereby overruling and ignoring the Bible-SP principle in this matter.
Certain people argue that Deut. 22:5 was part of the Mosaic Law and ended at the cross, thus has no bearing on Christians today. But what about the principle?
Aware of principle , Elder Don F. Neufeld notes that "Deut. 22:5.... is one in a series of civil laws and ordinances Moses enjoined the Israelites to observe. As a body of laws these ancient statutes no longer have validity. Their validity ceased when Israel lost its self-government. However, the coming to an end of this body of laws does not mean that people are at liberty to break every precept in the code. For example, one of the ancient laws enjoined, 'Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind' (Lev. 19:14). Simply because Israel's ancient civil code is no longer binding, a person cannot argue that he is now free to curse the deaf or to put something in the path of a blind man over which he will stumble." --(Review, 4/26/1979, pp. 17-18.) At the very least, then, principle must be considered and if applicable today must be observed.
(The present writers know of a Baptist Pastor and an Assembly Of God Pastor right here in this local area—each in charge of not only a congregation but also a private religious school—who teach that the principle of Deut. 22:5 is against females wearing pants. They neither accept nor are influenced by the SP, yet this is their conscientious understanding of Deut. 22:5 as based on principle. And speaking of school, the SP said in 1903: "No education can be complete that does not teach right principles in regard to dress." --Ed 246.) Some SDA's seemed not to accept the above admonition -by the SP, so Deut. 22:5 was again employed as modern-day application, or present truth, in 1 T 456-60: "Dear Brethren and Sisters. My apology for calling your attention again to the subject of dress is that some do not seem to understand what I have before written "I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deut. 22:5: 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,...for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.'....
"There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress [clothing] and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men , but God pronounces it abomination.....
"The foregoing was given me as a reproof to those who are inclined to adopt a style of dress resembling that worn by men In this style of dress God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded. Deut. 22:5 God's prohibitions are lightly regarded by all who advocate doing away with the distinction of dress between males and females "God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause CONFUSION, and GREAT INCREASE OF CRIME." --(1 T 456-60.)
Dr. Robert P. Odenwald, an M.D. and a practicing psychiatrist for 40 years, agrees. In his 1965 book The Disappearing Sexes he says that the present tendency to blur the roles of men and women is "wrecking havoc upon the younger generation which, deprived of clear masculine and feminine models at home, is compensating for its confusion by defying law and order, taking dope or turning to bizarre sexual practices." --(Review in Insider's Newsletter, 12/13/1965.)
In his book, Dr. Odenwald warns that forces "are working to eliminate differences between the sexes" and moving us toward "similarity," a unisex society, which development "is the source of many great social evils" including homosexuality. --(Pp. 4',23,3.) "In America particularly, where the trend toward the neutralization of the sexes is most pronounced,...Daddy may wash the dishes and the clothes while Mommy works in the factory on the night shift and the children see visible proof that she wears the pants One might say there is a relationship between the degree of masculinity in the women of a nation and the extent to which they have taken to wearing pants. In Latin countries like Italy and Spain, where men are still the unchallenged heads of their families, it is rare to find a native woman in slacks... And in these areas...pants are worn almost always by women who are engaged in the struggle with men for equality or superior ity This trend toward neutrality of the sexes is taking place at a time when evidence is mounting that many of the most serious ills of society stem specifically from the lack of a clear distinction." --(Pp. 4,25-6,172.)
Thus, even a non-SDA authority recognizes the danger and evil results of pants on women. How many children have already been confused and lost because of poor example? A mother's example is particularly important, because the type and style of clothing her little girl wears as she grows up may depend, to a large extent, on what she sees now and is taught now and how she dresses now. The SP declares, "As the twig is bent, the tree is inclined." --(CG 18. The same principle is noted in Prov. 22:6 NEB: "Start a boy on the right road, and even in old age he will not leave it.")
An article dealing with "unisex" appeared in the Dec. 1970 Family Health maga zine (pp. 31-2): "The Second National Bank of Richmond, Virginia, recently issued an order allowing women employees to wear pants suits.... To at least one leading sociologist, the current vogue for interchangeable, his-or-her clothing has a real ly ominous meaning. It's a sure sign that our society is undergoing a massive dis location of sexual identity, suggests Charles Winick, who is professor of sociology at the City University of New York.... The question of clothing is NOT so irrele vant or unimportant as it might appear, Winick declares. He thinks the blurring of masculine and feminine distinctions could spell disaster for the health of our nation. How could this be? Because people cannot cope with critical life situations until they are certain of their identity as masculine or feminine. When the sexual distinctions become blurred, individuals and society are in deep trouble."
The National Enquirer of 7/20/1976, p. 52, likewise reports: "The unisex atti tude.., is disastrous for marriage and produces 'bitterly unhappy children," warns a leading family expert. 'When unisex parents not only dress and look alike, but try to have the same roles in marriage, their children get the lowest common denominator instead of a rich variety of differences, ” explained Urie Bronfenbrenner, professor of human development and family studies at Cornell University. 'A child needs to be exposed to clear-cut male and female roles so he can develop his own identity,' he said. "These differences contribute to the richness of family life, and to the enrichment of the child. A child has to know who he is. He's either a boy or a girl. And the way he, or she, learns about that is by copying the parent of the same sex. If both parents tend to be the same, the child learns neither role. This could give him problems and unhappiness in his later years.'.... Unisex parents try to suppress their male-female differences, the professor said.... 'I believe the unisex attitude has made women unhappy,' he added. "They seem to have lost satisfaction in being women.'"
Yes, "Dr. Odenwald states that the younger generation would greatly benefit if mothers projected a sharp image of femininity and fathers were clearly masculine.... Children lose much [perhaps their eternal life!] when their parents present a con fused image of womanhood and manhood." --(Elder K. H. Wood, Review, 1/27/1966, p. 13.)
But, alas, the clothing and roles are blurred, and confusion and crime mounts, as "boys look like girls, girls look like boys, and the songs they sing are...sour, self-pitying whines about how awful things are." "As his-and-her clothes, hair styles and role assignments blurred the line between the sexes until they over lapped, the only thing left to swap was sex itself." And swapping sex they are! --(Time, 12/24/1965, p. 16; Newsweek, 5/27/1974, p. 90.)
As males grow longer hair and get permanents and/or styling and become more feminine looking, and females take off their dresses and put on pants and pants suits and become more masculine looking, thus causing "confusion, and great increase of crime," let us SDA's not add to the blurring but rather bring the proper image back into sharp focus by our example and practice.
Again, SDA men are not always exempt from the sin of vanity and the desire to be noticed. Some of them like to wear immodestly tight clothing. Or unbutton their shirts halfway down their chests. Perhaps even tint or dye their hair, like worldly people do.
The SP points out that "the example of those who follow the fashions of the world has a disastrous effect upon other members of the church," therefore "the sub ject of dress- demands serious reflection and much prayer .
“Fashion is deterio rating the intellect and eating out the spirituality of our people. Obedience to fashion is pervading our Seventh-day Adventist churches and is doing more than any other power to separate our people from God There is a terrible sin upon us as a people, that we have permitted our church members to dress in a manner incon sistent with their faith. We must arise at once and close the door against the allurements of fashion. Unless we do this, our churches will become demoralized." --(Review, 6/2/1891; 4 T 641,647,648.)
"There is need of a more thorough preparation on the part of candidates for baptism. They are in need of more faithful instruction than has usually been given them. The principles of the Christian life should be made plain to those who have newly come to the truth….
"The test of discipleship is not brought to bear as closely as it should be upon those who present themselves for baptism... Before baptism there should be a thorough inquiry as to the experience of the candidates... Bring the requirements of the gospel to bear upon the candidates....
"One of the points upon which those newly come to the faith will need instruc tion is the subject of dress. Let the new converts be faithfully dealt with. Are they vain in dress? Do they cherish pride of heart? The idolatry of dress is a moral disease. It must not be taken over into the new life. In most cases, submission to the gospel requirements will demand a decided change in the dress.... The words of Scripture [isn't Deut. 22:5 Scripture?] in regard to dress should be carefully considered." --(6 T 91-2,95-6; first published in A.D. 1900.)
And again in 1900 the SP repeats that girls and women should be in dresses. "Your girls should wear ...dresses. .. In cold weather they should wear warm flannel or cotton drawers, which can be placed inside the stockings. Over these should be warm lined pants... The dress should reach below the knee." Some women wrongly "will imitate the opposite sex as nearly as possible. They will wear the cap, pants, vest, coat, and boots, the last of which is the most sensible part of the costume...CONFUSION will be the result ….
"In this style of dress God's order has been reversed, and his special direc tions disregarded . 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man… for all that do so are abomination unto...God.' Deut. 22:5. This style of dress ...is not modest apparel, and is not at all fitting for modest, humble females who profess to be Christ's followers. God's prohibitions are lightly regarded by all who would advocate the doing away of the distinction of dress between males and females....
"God designed there should be a plain distinction between male and female dress, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause CONFU SION, and GREAT INCREASE OF CRIME." --(Review, 1/9/1900; Review, 2/6/1900.) And we need to heed this counsel from our heavenly Father, particularly if we love Him, because "obedience is far better than sacrifice... For rebellion is as bad as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as bad as worshiping idols," "...as sinful as idolatry." --(1 Sam. 15:22-23 TLB; verse 23 GNB.)
"When a man" or woman "knows what is right and fails to do it, he" or she "is guilty of sin." --(James 4:17 Goodspeed. Cf. with Luke 12:47-48; Ezek. 18:24-26; Heb. 10:26-27.)
The SP stated in 1908 that "our sisters should clothe themselves with modest apparel..., modest apparel..., having the dress of good material, durable, modest, ...and let not the dress question fill the mind." --(Ev 273.) Although "modest" is plainly mentioned 3 times here and the SP had already shown that men and women should NOT dress alike and that women should wear skirts that reach well below the knee or they are NOT "modest" some people pick out "let not the dress question fill the mind" as an excuse to reject the earlier SP testimonies regarding clothing.
But, we answer, "let not the dress question fill the mind" should not be used to overrule proper and modest clothing. The phrase is somewhat like "do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear." --(Matt. 6:25 NIV.) Does this verse mean we should purposely eat toadstools and drink deadly poison, or wear only gloves and galoshes in wet, cold weather?
So we do need to eat and drink and dress properly—these things are a part of the SDA health reform message, but not the main part of our message: Jesus is!—, so don't let the dress question fill the mind and become the number one subject, keep it in proper perspective.
Some people will ignore godly counsel about dress, of course, or will excuse their disobedience by saying, "Well, in olden times Jewish men and women both wore the same clothing—robes!"
Even if that were completely true, it can not rightly be used to overthrow present truth or excuse present rebellion. God also allowed the Jewish folk that which He did not want them to have permanently: a human king rather than Him—1 Sam. 8; slavery—Ex. 21:2-7; polygamy—Ex. 21:10; meat—Num. 11; alcoholic beverages —Deut. 14:26; easy divorce—Deut. 24:1-3, "because your hearts were hard"—Matt. 19:8 NIV; and the Jews ended up crucifying Jesus!
Some women may say they wear pants without a dress because pants or warmly clothed legs under a below-the-knee dress might make them "a gazingstock to others." Yet they want the pants snug enough to draw attention and admiration! Some do not mind being a "gazingstock" with new, immodest, or bizarre fashions or accessories, yet will not consider being a "gazingstock" with modest, godly dress.
Some may say they wear pants Only for warmth, but why then do females wear pants even when the weather is warm or hot? If they are wearing pants only for warmth, comfort, and health, then they won't mind wearing them with modest below-the-knee dresses.
It does seem that many females want and wear pants because of fashion, not ne cessity. They want to look and feel "sexy"! Norman Norell, a designer, thinks that "a woman actually has more sex appeal in trousers than in a dress." Bud Johns of Levi Strauss says "it's very hard for a woman to look more sexy than she does in a pair of jeans." --(Time, 4/18/1969, p. 95; Newsweek, 8/21/1972, p. 56.) When, through the SP, God several times refers to Deut. 22:5 as "His special directions," and instructs SDA females not to wear pants without a matching below-the-knee dress of good material/ it is unwise and unloving to disobey Him.
Whether it be a regular member or the wife of the deacon, elder, pastor, Union or General Conference president, all are expected to obey.
An Officer or Pastor who claims to believe and accept the SP writings, yet says his wife and our sisters may wear pants without a below-the-knee dress, is a curse to our Church because he undercuts and contradicts and makes a mockery of the SP and thus makes of no effect the messages and principles that God gave us through the SP.
If one really believes in the SP writings, one will accept and obey the principles taught therein. To "pick and choose," to pick one principle you like and choose to reject another you don't like, is to reject God His will and wisdom are made subject to your selection, you and not God determine what is right or wrong, you put yourself above God. The SP warns that "in the Judgment, men will...be condemned...because they did not believe the truth." "To obey...God is the only way to obtain His favor God will accept of no partial obedience." "Christ['s]...righteousness is imputed only to the obedient." --(PP 55; 4 T 28,148; 6 BC 1072.) Beloved, the end of the world is upon us, and God is calling us up to higher ground. To use excuses is to invite destruction!
Rather than getting trapped in this confused, rebellious, crime ridden and sex mad world, let our sincere Christian sisters honor our God, our Church, our young people, and our nation, by adopting the style of dress recommended by God. His blessings will attend as they do, but His curses if they don't! Another article that our Christian sisters might want to consider—high heeled shoes! The wearing of such not only forces the body into an abnormal and unhealthful stance, but also into a dangerous, accident-prone position.
At Monsanto Chemical Company's plant in Santa Clara, Calif., the Safety Engineer once threatened to ban high heels, for they considerably increase chances of an accident.
The high heel of today seems to be an invention of relatively modern times, perhaps an adaptation from something similar to the old cork shoe of France (A.D. 450) and the Venetian chopine (A.-D. 1500's).
Generally speaking, the Chopine did not allow suitable flexing of the feet, but did not distort the feet, being nothing more than raised platform "shoes." The Chopine extended the entire length of the feet, not being raised on either end, possibly worn for the purpose of rising above the filth of the streets, or to add to one's stature.
Sometime in the late 16th century women's heels came up in the world, with women's related health going down.
Dr. Vert Mooney, professor and chairman of orthopedic surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, explains that "with each step, high heels rapidly shift all the weight for ward onto the ball of the foot... If such shoes are worn for long periods of time, bones and soft tissues may bend, resulting in deformities..,. High heels also may be a source of pain in the ankles, knees, and back... You can resolve a fair amount of back pain in women by having them change to a more reasonable, lower heel." --(Life & Health, Aug. 1979, p. 24.) While working as an orthopedic technician in a modern U.S. Naval Hospital, I (Edward Ross) observed numerous de formed feet which resulted from Navy wives wearing such heels.
Dr. Harry Miller long ago pointed out that "high heels tilt the body forward, place an extra strain upon the ligaments of the ankle, and lead to deformity and displacement of the organs and tissues in other parts of the body. As can be read ily seen, this unnatural position of the feet affect the health, not only of the feet, but of the whole body." --(The Way To Health, 1920 ed., p. 68.)
Various other physicians agree: "The toe of the shoe should not be pointed... High heels weaken the arch. Corns, bunions, broken arches, ingrowing toenails, and general ill health may be the heritage from unhygienic shoes." --(The Home Physician and Guide To Health, by 30 Medical Doctors, 1923 ed., p. 95.)
Dr. Marshall Rockwell of the Loma Linda University Hospital, one who has spe cialized training in the field of the anatomy and physiology of the bones and is well qualified to speak on this subject of feet and high heels, has plainly writ ten: "It must be apparent that normal posture for the feet is flat on the floor with no elevation under the heel. The body is then balanced on a base which is the length of the foot, from the heel to the metatarsal heads, plus some assistance from the additional length of the toes. When the heel is elevated -, the length of this base is shortened so that greater muscular effort is required to maintain erect pos ture .
"One research group recently reported a study of the additional stress placed on the forefoot by the use of heel elevations. With a heel one and one quarter inches high, the stress on the forefoot was increased by 50 per cent; with a heel two inches high, forefoot stress was almost double that found with a one-half inch heel. The report states that with heel heights of over two inches there is a marked tendency for the forefoot to pronate, or roll inward, placing the entire stress on the first 2 metatarsal 'heads instead of on all 5.....
"Poor body posture resulting from high heels is regarded by many physicians as a common cause of low backache, and the experience of many women would confirm this impression." --(Review, 12/16/1965, p. 5.)
"We have often wondered why," wrote then Review Editor F. D. Nichol, "if God intended the human heel to be raised as high as the high-heeled shoes require, He would not have made the arch of the foot different, and also the connecting mus cles ....
"Americans used to write pitying articles about the cultured Chinese women whose feet were bound. We all shuddered at the senseless customs of the 'heathen Chinee. 1 Well,...high heels...do something damaging to the foot...of the Chris tian American." --(Review, 12/16/1965, p. 14.) Yes, SDA's, who claim to have and accept a health reform message from God, should dispose of that fashion which is deforming/destroying the human temple of God and wear sensible and healthful footwear.
“One important part of the work of the ministry,” the SP says, “is to faithfully present to the people the health reform as it stands connected with the third angel's message as part and parcel of the same work…., and should urge it upon all who profess to believe the truth …. The health reform, I was shown, is a part of the third angel's message and is just as closely connected with it as are the arm and hand with the human body…. Viewing matters from a high religious standpoint, we must be thorough reformers in order to be Christlike…. Ministers and people should...agitate the [health reform] subject and urge it home upon others." --(1 T 469-70,486,488,489.) "The Lord is displeased with the pride manifested among His professed people. He is dishonored by their conformity to the unhealthful...fashions of this degenerate age. Fashion rules the world; and she is a tyrannical mistress, often com pelling her devotees to submit to the greatest inconvenience and discomfort. Fashion taxes without reason and collects without mercy.... Satan...exults when he sees professed Christians eagerly accepting the fashions that he has in vented." --(4 T 634.)
"Said the angel, as with sorrow he saw the professed people of God loving the world — and following its fashions: 'Cut loose! Cut loose! Lest He appoint you your portion with hypocrites and unbelievers outside the city. Your...punishment will be greater because ye knew His will, but did it not.'" --(1 T 133. Cf. with 1 Cor. 3:16-17; Luke 12:47; Heb. 10:26-27.) May the dear Lord's richest blessing rest upon you, as you endeavor to carry out His will in this matter. Amen.
PRINCIPLE TRACT SOCIETY
P. 0. Box 885 Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
