Sunday Best Or Casual - Page 3

Pilgrim · #81 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Vic,

I did: HERE

Bill, he means using the real translation of the Scriptures.

Joshua, you mean this....?

Quote:

Σαμες 2:1-13 Αδελφοι, μοὑ μη. εϝν προσωπολημψι,αις ε·ξετε τη.ν πι,στιν τού κυρι,ου ὴμών ϜΙησού Ξριστού τής δο,χησÅ 2 εϝα.ν γα.ρ ειϝσε,λθῃ ειϝς συναγωγη.ν ὺμών αϝνη.ρ ξρυσοδακτυ,λιος εϝν εϝσθήτι λαμπρᾅ ειϝσε,λθῃ δε. και. πτωξο.ς εϝν ρ`υπαρᾴ εϝσθήτἱ 3 εϝπιβλε,ψητε δε. εϝπι. το.ν φορούντα τη.ν εϝσθήτα τη.ν λαμπρα.ν και. ει·πητὲ συ. κα,θου ω-δε καλώσ῾ και. τῴ πτωξῴ ει·πητὲ συ. στήθι εϝκεί η' κα,θου ὺπο. το. ὺποπο,διο,ν μοὑ 4 ουϝ διεκρι,θητε εϝν ὲαυτοίς και. εϝγε,νεσθε κριται. διαλογισμών πονηρώνÈ 5 ϜΑκου,σατἑ αϝδελφοι, μου αϝγαπητοι,` ουϝξ ὸ θεο.ς εϝχελε,χατο του.ς πτωξου.ς τῴ κο,σμῳ πλουσι,ους εϝν πι,στει και. κληρονο,μους τής βασιλει,ας η-ς εϝπηγγει,λατο τοίς αϝγαπώσιν αυϝτο,νÈ 6 ὺμείς δε. ηϝτιμα,σατε το.ν πτωξο,νÅ ουϝξ οὶ πλου,σιοι καταδυναστευ,ουσιν ὺμών και. αυϝτοι. ε[λκουσιν ὺμάς ειϝς κριτη,ριαÈ 7 ουϝκ αυϝτοι. βλασφημούσιν το. καλο.ν ο·νομα το. εϝπικληθε.ν εϝφϜ ὺμάσÈ 8 Ειϝ με,ντοι νο,μον τελείτε βασιλικο.ν κατα. τη.ν γραφη,ν` αϝγαπη,σεις το.ν πλησι,ον σου ὼς σεαυτο,ν῾ καλώς ποιείτὲ 9 ειϝ δε. προσωπολημπτείτἑ ὰμαρτι,αν εϝργα,ζεσθε εϝλεγξο,μενοι ὺπο. τού νο,μου ὼς παραβα,ταιÅ 10 ο[στις γα.ρ ο[λον το.ν νο,μον τηρη,σῃ πται,σῃ δε. εϝν ὲνι,῾ γε,γονεν πα,ντων ε·νοξοσÅ 11 ὸ γα.ρ ειϝπω,ν` μη. μοιξευ,σῃσ῾ εῖπεν και,` μη. φονευ,σῃσ` ειϝ δε. ουϝ μοιξευ,εις φονευ,εις δε,῾ γε,γονας παραβα,της νο,μουÅ 12 ου[τως λαλείτε και. ου[τως ποιείτε ὼς δια. νο,μου εϝλευθερι,ας με,λλοντες κρι,νεσθαιÅ 13 ὴ γα.ρ κρι,σις αϝνε,λεος τῴ μη. ποιη,σαντι ε·λεοσ` κατακαυξάται ε·λεος κρι,σεωσÅ

Only if that's the TR.

Pergamum · #82 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 03:51 PM

BertMUlder: At least ties are better than powdered wigs (my apologies to many an old puritan)..

py3ak · #83 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 03:54 PM

I used to wear a tie on Sunday evenings but not on Sunday mornings. I saw no reason why the evening service should be less formal than the morning service, and at best it seemed like a thoughtless convention. We should definitely think through these issues, and do so with the understanding that many people do use clothing to make a statement (as in a rather quiet way I used to do); but we should be very hesitant about asserting that a certain style of clothing is necessarily connected with a certain attitude. Businesses do have a dress code, and that might give us some useful information about cultural perceptions of clothing and thus how to be culturally appropriate; but I think we can all agree that coming to worship is not quite the same thing as meeting an attorney or attending a job interview.

BertMulder · #84 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

BertMUlder: At least ties are better than powdered wigs (my apologies to many an old puritan)..

Those things: gross!

(without apology to any old puritan)

(hear benchers still wear them in jolly ole england, and hear they stink too!)

Archlute · #85 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I also brought a girl to church one time during college and had someone comment to me that she should really wear a skirt instead of pants. I was infuriated and she never came back.

This actually could be the start of another thread, because there is a great difference between wearing "richer or poorer" clothing within the style of one's own sex, and the wearing of clothing that some would see as a mixing of the sexes and pushing cultural androgyny, such as was prohibited in Deuteronomy 22:5. It is presented in Scripture as a moral issue, and I do not think that an individual is out of line in holding and voicing this opinion (although more wisdom could possibly have been used regarding the best time to bring this issue up).

FWIW, I'm not fond of missiologists, and don't buy most of their culturally relativistic arguments regarding issues such as this. Yes, I have heard them state that what Scripture defines as stealing really isn't stealing if the culture in which it takes place does not see what they are doing as "stealing"

Ha...you're kidding right? Pulling out the ol' Deuteronomy 22:5 on me, heh?

These pants were clearly female pants.

There needs to be a bit of leeway for culture when it comes to dress. You don't wear a frilly white poet's shirt and a powdered wig do you? You don't wear an inner and outer tunic like Jesus did do you, and you might might have the long untrimmed beard of the Jews. You wear shoes instead of "Jesus sandals" and you might wear the silliest invention of all time - the tie.

Being smart about cultural differences doesn't mean wholesale relativism...come on now, that should be plain.

About communal property and stealing: If the tribe owns a land collectively and all the fruit trees on the land, who can pick the fruit? Even stealing, murder, adultery...all these have cultural factors which worsen or lessen the transgression.

No, I'm not kidding. You mean female pants in the same way as female baseball caps, right...

Again, missiologists rely far more on sociological interpretations than any sort of passable exegetical work. Most that I have met are theological relativists, and are quite poorly trained in theology and the languages. I don't think that I will waste time debating the theft issue except to say that the church should ignore the wagging of the missiologist's shaming finger, and instruct pagan cultures on the ethical norms of God's law, whether the culture is African or Western or whatever. I really despise the ecclesiological weakness of the modern evangelical "missions" movement. It is filled with confusion and theological individualism.

ColdSilverMoon · #86 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Again, missiologists rely far more on sociological interpretations than any sort of passable exegetical work. Most that I have met are theological relativists, and are quite poorly trained in theology and the languages. I don't think that I will waste time debating the theft issue except to say that the church should ignore the wagging of the missiologist's shaming finger, and instruct pagan cultures on the ethical norms of God's law, whether the culture is African or Western or whatever. I really despise the ecclesiological weakness of the modern evangelical "missions" movement. It is filled with confusion and theological individualism.

I think you're being a bit unfair to missiologists. I'm the first to argue against cultural relativism, but not all missiologists believe in relativism and many are quite strong theologically. Also, theological individualism and relativism is no worse "on the mission field" than it is in many mainstream denominations, especially with the proliferation of "seeker friendly" mega-churches. I'm sure there are plenty of missiologists who fit your description, but I think you're painting them with too broad a brush.

I will admit this is a bit personal for me since my father-in-law is a missionary in Europe and has a doctorate in Missions. He is very strong theologically and wages a constant war against sin in his church brought on by years of secularism. It is a tiring struggle, but he is one missiologist who has not caved to cultural relativism...

tcalbrecht · #87 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Wear fitting attire for an appointment with the King of the universe.

White robes?

BJClark · #88 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 10:16 AM

Contra_Mundum;

Quote:

I mean, doesn't love and acceptance flow both ways? Would you be willing to come in "community standards" of acceptable dress so as not to make the contented majority in that place wonder why its so important to tear those standards down? Is it really all about "don't judge me!" or could it be about "I think (judge!) you folks to be uptight about dress, and I'm going to pop your bubble. So there."

I believe someone addressed this, when they were on vacation they didn't take "Formal Church Clothes" with them, yet, they went to a local church for worship and they were dressed 'out of place'.

But I'm curious, what if a homeless person came to your church service, would they be shunned because they were not dressed to your standard?

How would one be trying to tear YOUR community standards down by wearing what they have to wear and not dressing to meet YOUR standards? How does how they dress take anything away from YOU or YOUR standards? Why do you assume their hearts are such that they are coming to tear this community down, and not merely coming to Worship God?

Why do you seem to assume that just because a person doesn't dress a cetrain way or in certain fashions that their hearts are some how not focused on God? Or that they are some how less holy than someone else who dresses in the latest fashions?

And no Love and accceptance doesn't flow both ways..a Christian is to love even His enemies, and it's not about accepting their sin, but accepting them as God's creation and where God has placed them in this life--rich or poor, fancy clothes or not, healthy or sickly..

Quote:

And one other thing... keeping James 2 in mind and all, is it in keeping with a heart of love to God to look like you could care less about preparing pretty much at all for worship? Like you could barely roll out of bed in time to make it to church before the first hymn was finished?

Again, why do you assume the worst of your brethern? Why do you assume that just because they wear a pair of jeans & button up shirt or a polo that they look unkept or as if they just rolled out of bed? I'm sorry but that seems rather disrespectful of you towards them. Shouldn't the most important thing be that their hearts are ready and prepared for worship?

Quote:

Remember, the James 2 text isn't even dealing with the attitude of the +/- dressed person at all, but the attitude of the church and their acceptance of all and prejudiced treatment.

Looking at what you stated in the below quote aren't you doing exactly what is say's not to do in the above quote? It's not about the person who does dress this way or that way, but about the attitude of the church and their acceptance of all and their prejudiced treatment of others...

Quote:

I mean, doesn't love and acceptance flow both ways? Would you be willing to come in "community standards" of acceptable dress so as not to make the contented majority in that place wonder why its so important to tear those standards down? Is it really all about "don't judge me!" or could it be about "I think (judge!) you folks to be uptight about dress, and I'm going to pop your bubble. So there."

And I'm curious, do people sit in the same pew each week and would they get offended if a new person came to visit the congregation and sat in their pew? Or would they welcome them even if they weren't dressed like everyone else?

JOwen · #89 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Below is an excerpt of a post I sent to our denominational discussion board that dovetails somewhat with our discussion here.

I would make the distinction between “dressing up” and “dressing appropriately”. I grew up in the Charismatic mainline Churches where Dockers and a golf shirt became the new uniform of the Church. The reasoning was not altogether different from your own, that “God knows my heart, I can't fool Him. Jesus is my Brother, so I don't need to put on my best clothing.” Jesus is our “buddy”, of “friend”, and so “why go to all the fuss of worrying about my clothes?” Little did we know that “dressing down” as a protest of apparent inward hypocrisy, was in fact nothing more than the “new” dressing up. In the local Vineyard Church, if you did not have on the ripped jeans and faded surfing t-shirt on, you were not in the “in crowd” and were probably inwardly power hungry, had something to hide, or a pharisee. Rubbish.

We forget that while Christ is our “Elder Brother”, he is also the Eternal and Everlasting Holy God before who the holy angels shield their faces. He is unapproachable light. All through the Old Testament the priest was to take off his everyday clothing and put on the garments of the priests before he was to enter his duty of worship and the holy place. Now this was part of the Ceremonial Law, and was done away with in the death of our Lord. However the principle behind the action is not removed.1 Pe 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:” The principle is still in place to give proper thought as to how we dress on the Lord's day. A suit, whether you are going for an evening to the opera, a 50th wedding anniversary, a funeral, or yes, to meet the Queen, is the culturally accepted norm of respect and formality. Be you a popper or a president.

God is not our cosmic Big Brother, but “wholly other” as Van Til put it, and is worthy not only of our inward respect and honour, but our outward as well.
You made a comment that we would never dress up for our brother. I agree. But would you dress up for your 25th wedding anniversary at a fancy restaurant? Would you dress up for the funeral of your best friend? If so, why? It is out of honour and respect. Every Sabbath, we come to the “house of the LORD” to remember the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ in a “formal setting”. This is not private worship in your bedroom, but official public worship of the Triune God. It is not “power” in view or covering up apparent hypocrisy, but “respect” for the uncreated Being who in majesty, grace, honour, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth has granted eternal life to as many as believe. This is why we do not pray with our hands in our pockets, leaning on the pulpit, using street slang in our prayers, and part of the reason we do not worship according to the dictates of our own heart. After all, if God knows the heart, why go to any effort at all in these things? He knows I'm sincere, right? Wrong.
Do a study of the symbolism of clothing in the Bible and you will soon see that what we wear in reference to God is vastly more important than we might think in our anti-authority age. And that is the heart of the matter. In 2000 years of Church history, it is only in our age of anti-authority that people did not want to dress formal. Even the poor old dust covered Puritan farmer had his Sabbath clothes.
If we want to show true humility in what we wear to Church, it would not be a pair of Tommy Hilfiger pants and Abercrombie & Fitch shirt instead of a suit, it would be sackcloth and ashes! I don't think many would want to do that.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion (the Church); put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Just some thoughts. Keep thinking!

JBaldwin · #90 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

How would one be trying to tear YOUR community standards down by wearing what they have to wear and not dressing to meet YOUR standards? How does how they dress take anything away from YOU or YOUR standards? Why do you assume their hearts are such that they are coming to tear this community down, and not merely coming to Worship God?

Why do you seem to assume that just because a person doesn't dress a cetrain way or in certain fashions that their hearts are some how not focused on God? Or that they are some how less holy than someone else who dresses in the latest fashions?

Thank you, Bobbi, for you comments.

While I was reading your post some people in my church came to mind. These are dear elderly saints from a nearby nursing home who don their "best" every Sunday. What is their best? For one, it is a wild hat and a bright red coat. Sometimes her stockings are slipping down. Often, part of her breakfast from that morning is on the front of her dress. For another, she pulls out all of her jewelry. Some of it is plastic rings from gum machines that people have given her. Another comes in a shirt and trousers. I'm sure he's had slippers on his feet more than once. He drools. Sometimes, they really smell bad. These folks are poor, they own very little, but every time the doors of the church are open, they are there worshipping with all their hearts. They sing out at the top of their lungs when it's time to sing, they "amen" the sermons. One of them puts me to shame she is so thankful for even the fact that she is able to get out of bed in the morning.

I can't imagine what our church life would be without these dear saints, and who are we to judge them for their choice of "Sunday best"?

Archlute · #91 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Again, missiologists rely far more on sociological interpretations than any sort of passable exegetical work. Most that I have met are theological relativists, and are quite poorly trained in theology and the languages. I don't think that I will waste time debating the theft issue except to say that the church should ignore the wagging of the missiologist's shaming finger, and instruct pagan cultures on the ethical norms of God's law, whether the culture is African or Western or whatever. I really despise the ecclesiological weakness of the modern evangelical "missions" movement. It is filled with confusion and theological individualism.

I think you're being a bit unfair to missiologists. I'm the first to argue against cultural relativism, but not all missiologists believe in relativism and many are quite strong theologically. Also, theological individualism and relativism is no worse "on the mission field" than it is in many mainstream denominations, especially with the proliferation of "seeker friendly" mega-churches. I'm sure there are plenty of missiologists who fit your description, but I think you're painting them with too broad a brush.

I will admit this is a bit personal for me since my father-in-law is a missionary in Europe and has a doctorate in Missions. He is very strong theologically and wages a constant war against sin in his church brought on by years of secularism. It is a tiring struggle, but he is one missiologist who has not caved to cultural relativism...

I speak regarding the missiologists whom I have known and engaged in discussion, and the vast majority of missiological journals and materials that I have read. To the men, such as your father, who are of a better persuasion, give my regards. Until I meet/read their likes, however, my opinion of the endeavor as a whole, remains.

larryjf · #92 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 12:15 PM

I would have to say that it depends on what the motivation of the heart is in what you wear.

When I heard that some did not come to church because they felt like they had to dress up for it, and they didn't have anything to dress up in, i started dressing more casually.

Folks just don't feel welcome in a church of suits when they have jeans and a t-shirt.

tcalbrecht · #93 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Ever give any thought to the specific prescription for priestly clothes? Just think it is a way for us to set ourselves peculiar and set apart to bring glory to the King. The line between the secular culture we live in and the church is getting so blurred casual dress just ads to it. Our Arminian friends do it to make sure average Joe isn't uncomfortable and this ideology keeps the Gospel from being proclaimed in the same vain. Our God need be feared, nothing wrong with an unbeliever being uncomfortable, it may be a start.

Suppose I wear a suit to work in the world the other 5/6 days of the week and I work among people who wear suits in their profession. How do I find some other attire to set myself apart from the world on the sabbath?

Does it mean I should rent a tux?

etexas · #94 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Ever give any thought to the specific prescription for priestly clothes? Just think it is a way for us to set ourselves peculiar and set apart to bring glory to the King. The line between the secular culture we live in and the church is getting so blurred casual dress just ads to it. Our Arminian friends do it to make sure average Joe isn't uncomfortable and this ideology keeps the Gospel from being proclaimed in the same vain. Our God need be feared, nothing wrong with an unbeliever being uncomfortable, it may be a start.

Suppose I wear a suit to work in the world the other 5/6 days of the week and I work among people who wear suits in their profession. How do I find some other attire to set myself apart from the world on the sabbath?

Does it mean I should rent a tux?

Nice!

tcalbrecht · #95 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uberkermit

A few thoughts to consider,

To those who use the argument 'How would you dress in front of the President or Prime Minister or Queen' let me ask one thing: Why do you create such a dichotomy between meeting the Lord on the Lord's day and meeting the Lord on any other day while in prayer and family worship? Assuming there is no difference (for he is just as much Lord of the universe on Tuesday as he is on the Lord's day) then who are you dressing for on the Lord's day?

The other false dichotomy is between the once in a lifetime opportunity to meet the president (assuming he's not your next door neighbor) and meeting with the King of kings every Sabbath. If I saw the president on a regular basis, attire might not be such an issue. In fact, we have seen photos of the president with his cabinet in very casual attire.

In reality our outward attire is for others or perhaps for ourselves. God have not given me any personal instruction in this regard (outside the modesty prescriptions). I'm free in Christ to dress in any fashion that does not violate my conscience.

govols · #96 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Ever give any thought to the specific prescription for priestly clothes? Just think it is a way for us to set ourselves peculiar and set apart to bring glory to the King. The line between the secular culture we live in and the church is getting so blurred casual dress just ads to it. Our Arminian friends do it to make sure average Joe isn't uncomfortable and this ideology keeps the Gospel from being proclaimed in the same vain. Our God need be feared, nothing wrong with an unbeliever being uncomfortable, it may be a start.

Suppose I wear a suit to work in the world the other 5/6 days of the week and I work among people who wear suits in their profession. How do I find some other attire to set myself apart from the world on the sabbath?

Does it mean I should rent a tux?

Buying one would be cheaper.

BJClark · #97 (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 02:57 PM

larryjf;

Quote:

When I heard that some did not come to church because they felt like they had to dress up for it, and they didn't have anything to dress up in, i started dressing more casually.

What exactly are Church clothes, these days?

Most people I know wear the same type of clothing to work that they do to Church, and in order for them to 'dress up' for Church they would pretty much need to wear a formal gown or tux to church, to be considered 'dressed up'.

Most men wear suits to work all week long, so to wear a suit to church is not wearing "church clothes" it's wearing work clothes, and for them it's not really dressing UP in Church clothes.

My grandfather was a farmer so for him, to get dressed up for Church and wear his Sunday best was much different than it is today for most people, and I imagine it's the same for many who work on farms or live in small rural communities...but for those who live in the City or in larger suburbs, the clothes are pretty much the same..