Sunday Best Or Casual - Page 4

redmanca · #**121** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

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

I thought I'd jump in here. I agree with this post, but want to take it another direction than most.

I'm 20, and a college student (go Tigers!). Most times I wear nice jeans and a button down shirt. Sometimes khakis and a button down. But my Dad recently bought me my first sport coat and I love it. I've worn it to Church with a tie and pocket square once, and look forward to wearing it again.

HOWEVER,

One of the main reasons I like wearing it is because I like to dress up, because I enjoy looking nice. Now the emphasis is on my appearance, concerning how others see/perceive me and my dress. This is clearly a wrong heart motive, and though I am struggling by the grace of God to have that changed, it is difficult.

Is it still right and "necessary" that I wear my best, if my heart motive is more sinful when I do?

Just a question.

Conor.

raekwon · #**122** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 11:30 AM

Is there really something inherently "wrong" or sinful with wanting to look nice, though? I'd say "no, there's not". It's when that (and the opinions of man) is your sole or primary motivation for dressing the way you to that it becomes an issue.

larryjf · #**123** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 05:05 PM

As Christians we are to be dressed in the most gloriously beautiful clothing all the time...Christ Himself.
The earthly clothing that we wear to cover our shame should simply be modest.

The clothing that we wear should not bring notice to itself, but to our face...which is the housing for our eyes...which is the light of our body (mat 6:22). Christ Himself is the light of the world (Jn 8:12), and we should do everything in our power not to take any focus off of Him and His glory

Augusta · #**124** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOwen

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!

Here is the argument ender. It is a heart issue, but it also is a respect issue. What you wear shows your respect. This is why you would dress up for the Queen. Your heart comes through in your dress. Your respect and awe come through in your dress. So you wear the best you have and God knows what you have and he sees your heart. So just wear the best you have.

larryjf · #**125** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 06:21 PM

Should we also put on the best jewelry that we have?

If i were to meet the Queen i would dress however she wanted me to (within reason). I would not simply presume to know how the Queen wanted me to dress, i would find out first.

God has told us how He wants us to dress - modestly. To go beyond that is to presume to know more about God's mind than He has revealed.

When we speak of our clothing showing our heart attitude i have to wonder...perhaps we should be dressed in sackcloth and ash.

God requires modest apparel, gender specific, with women to wear a covering on their head. What man requires is irrelevant.

servantofmosthigh · #**126** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 06:35 PM

[quote=redmanca;386592]

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

One of the main reasons I like wearing it is because I like to dress up, because I enjoy looking nice. Now the emphasis is on my appearance, concerning how others see/perceive me and my dress. This is clearly a wrong heart motive, and though I am struggling by the grace of God to have that changed, it is difficult. Is it still right and "necessary" that I wear my best, if my heart motive is more sinful when I do? Just a question. Conor.

Yes and no. I remember when I was in college, I noticed that when I made a point in class, professors would ignore me. But when an older person made the same point I made, professors would respect their points. So, I stopped wearing jeans and t-shirts to class and started wearing slacks and buttoned shirts or polo shirts. Personally, I did feel "older" in doing so. And professors also started respecting some of my points compared to when I was wearing jeans & t-shirt.

So what about worship? Does wearing "jeans & t-shirt" cause us to feel different in worship than wearing something more formal? More importantly, does the difference change our very attitude and posture in worship? If so, why?

Great discussions by all. I'm truly invigorated by the many contributions from all possible sides of this topic.

servantofmosthigh · #**127** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Kistler

Vincent Alsop preached a very "relevant" sermon on this topic entitled "The Sinfulness of Strange Apparel" in the 17th century, which gives a theology of fashion and apparel. It can be found in the Soli Deo Gloria book "Practical Godliness" by Vincent Alsop.

Thanks, Dr. Kistler. What a party-pooper. You just fizzled a lively party. And besides, isn't promoting a book by a Puritan that you, yourself, edited forbidden in this forum?

kalawine · #**128** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

I also want to make a qualification, I'd think it would be within the power of the Elders to address any attire that may serve as a great distraction from the Worship of God.

That is why have a stapler handy for any teens who show up with their underwear showing because their pants are too baggy.

That's very funny! And I believe that in today's society we can all relate!

Presbyterian Deacon · #**129** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Kistler

Vincent Alsop preached a very "relevant" sermon on this topic entitled "The Sinfulness of Strange Apparel" in the 17th century, which gives a theology of fashion and apparel. It can be found in the Soli Deo Gloria book "Practical Godliness" by Vincent Alsop.

Thanks, Dr. Kistler. What a party-pooper. You just fizzled a lively party. And besides, isn't promoting a book by a Puritan that you, yourself, edited forbidden in this forum?

Now that's funny!

.....but funny!

Pergamum · #**130** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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.

Wow..if you really mean all this and this is not mere hyperbole, then I am very glad you are in the US and are making no plans to cross any cultural boundaries.

Pergamum · #**131** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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.

So, do tell me what journals DO you read?

Pergamum · #**132** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

I am thinking of wearing a Gorilla costume to church one Sunday. When it is cooler of course. It would be too hot and itchy now.

As long as you wear a tie with that gorilla outfit.

North Jersey Baptist · #**133** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

I am thinking of wearing a Gorilla costume to church one Sunday. When it is cooler of course. It would be too hot and itchy now.

As long as you wear a tie with that gorilla outfit.

I like these.

Archlute · #**134** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

Wow..if you really mean all this and this is not mere hyperbole, then I am very glad you are in the US and are making no plans to cross any cultural boundaries.

Well there's your weakness, you seem to look at culture from a largely theologically neutral perspective, and are therefore a cultural relativist. No missiologist should evaluate a culture apart from the moral law of God, and yet that is exactly what they tend to do.

I could probably say that I am sad to see you working in missions, and would be fine not seeing you become an officer of the church, if you do indeed divorce divine law from cultural evaluations, to include the anthropological issues gender and dress.

Archlute · #**135** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

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.

So, do tell me what journals DO you read?

I read enough of them when I attended a broadly evangelical seminary for several years before attending WSC. They had a large missiology department, and a good number of periodicals. I don't remember their titles, and,frankly, I don't consider that a loss.

FWIW, most of the missionaries who came back there to study were radical Arminians, and many of them had no real understanding of the Gospel or of the nature and attributes of God, from the way they spoke, and I surely think that they are doing no good in spreading their erroneous theology among the people with whom they work. I no longer support the work of missions outside of Reformed church bodies for this very reason. You should read up on Machen and Pearle Buck sometime.

victorbravo · #**136** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 12:38 AM

Missiology is not the topic of this thread.

I missed it straying before, please, everyone, stay on topic.

Pergamum · #**137** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 05:57 AM

Culture is, however, intimately tied into this thread (thus the link to missiology).

And a good principle is that as long as the culture is not sinning, then your dress and attire should resemble the dress and attire of what a respectable person in your host culture should be. For church this would fit as well.

(Sidenote on Rick Warren's Hawaiian t-shirts: these t shirts have always been worn on vacations and culturally we associate them with lightheartedness and not reflection... therefore Rick Warren's dress and attire are not sinful but they do not seem to convey the solemnity of a church service).

Dressing demands us to understand the culture in which one is working. i.e. therefore sociology might be a useful tool.

The cultural dress and attire upheld as the norm in many American churches is a 1950's code. Our culture has shifted. Many churches refuse to shift and then ignorantly blame it on upholding the Word of God, when all they are upholding is what was considered "appropriate dress" of a generation or two ago.

Gloria · #**138** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

So do you wear and suit and tie for