Atypical Year-End Post

Kathleen Parker, whose column I read whenever I get a chance, wrote a slightly different year-end column than usual.  Instead of a mea culpa (acknowledgement of personal fault or error) column, or a predictions or a resolutions column, she wrote a "this is what annoys me most" column. You can read it here.  Just so you know why I'm feeling justified in doing the same.  

Parker concentrated on speech patterns she finds annoying.  She doesn't like the following:  The use of the word "hot" to refer to people instead of to temperature, the use of the "man up" command in the political arena, ending statements with verbal question marks, and the substitution of "no problem" for "you're welcome"--in response to "thank you."  I concur with Parker on every count, although I am more fortunate than she in that I don't often hear some of the things that annoy her.  Parker, on the other hand is not likely to affirm everything on my list--which you'll soon agree she probably doesn't encounter very often.

First on my list is coverings worn in such a way that they appear to be ready to take leave of their moorings and either ride off into the sunset all by themselves or slide down the backside of the wearer.  

If we all had studied engineering, we'd know something about the need for attaching one thing to another thing in such a way that everything is supported adequately.  Architects, for example, don't usually design buildings with downward-angled eaves if the roof is flat.  The eaves would look unsupported, even if the side wall of the building somehow kept the eaves from falling off.  Such eaves would be an affront to common sensibilities about how things look when they are well supported, as when the eaves are an extension of the rafters or trusses that rest firmly on all the sidewalls of the building.  That's what I see in far-back-on-the-head coverings--an affront to common sensibilities about how things look when they are well supported.  

Because they are light, coverings can be made to stay in place with a few pins, but that doesn't mean they look right supported only by pins.  I find myself inhaling sharply involuntarily sometimes when I see such a covering, and I'm not naturally a fearful person.  I'd like to see a portion of the covering resting securely on the crown of the head.  It would look supported and sensible there.  

Lots of hair is exposed when coverings are worn to cover only a portion of the back of the head.  This presents a secondary dilemma--how to make the exposed part look interesting and keep it under control.  Ornamentation is one way, with bands or bejeweled clips or pins, for example, which probably serve also to keep it under control.  Elaborate styling is another way--with imaginatively placed parts and hair sliding or swooping away from them, or hair twisted or braided, or dangling loosely in front at the sides.  Ostentation is the offending factor here to me personally.  I affirm simplicity and modesty on all fronts, and I don't see it expressed in the hairstyles described above.  Hair worn simply serves as a frame for the face--where character and Spirit shine.  Elaborate hairstyles and excessive ornamentation draw attention to the hair itself rather than to the face.  

Many of us idealize a church environment where people's outward appearance reflects inner personal values aligned with Scripture and common sense--without the need for painfully specific directives about how this should be done.  When the outward appearance seems to reflect a lack of common sense or a departure from a Scriptural principle, in the absence of such standards being forced upon everyone, I'd like to think the corollary is possible--members calling each other to an appropriate personal standard.  That's why, although I lack the stature and gravitas of Parker in the literary world, I'm risking the fallout of speaking up about the "shameful" way coverings are sometimes worn.  Best of all, I'd wish for personal piety to prevail without the need for speaking of it.  

I'll talk about that other thing (which I'm unable to recall at the moment) in a later post.