In which our regular writers toss
around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: I like track pants and
t-shirts myself. It’s what’s most comfortable, frankly. I’ve
never liked suits. They’re expensive, and I don’t have any other
use for them.
What do you think, IC? Can I sport my
sweats in the pews?
Immanuel Can: Ha! You’ll
scandalize the little old ladies. And the dour old men will be
none too happy either. But I know of no scriptural prohibition
on informality. You raise a good question: what is the Christian
view of attire, particularly in regard to the meetings of the church?
Rocking the North American Classic
Tom: Well, I know what it was
traditionally for the fifty-something male: suit and tie. Hot day,
maybe you get to doff the jacket. That’s certainly done and dusted,
and I can’t say I’ll miss it. But if I’m honest, the sweats
will probably stay at home.
Where did this come from, do you think?
It’s pretty clear the Lord did not start the trend, and the
apostles are unlikely candidates for clothes horses.
IC: There’s a sort of “common
sense” view that if you’re going somewhere important you wear
your best, I suppose. But the suit-and-tie stuff can only be a sort
of Western idea. Obviously, clothing differs around the world, and
according to what a person actually can own. There can be no one rule
for appropriate attire for a meeting of the church … except
perhaps those verses that mandate we don’t discriminate based on
the expensiveness of clothing.
In Consideration of Others
Tom: Okay, I like the sound of
that. If the Lord cared what I wore, he would surely have established
a dress code and had an apostle write it up. He didn’t.
He did, however, establish a few
principles that might govern my choices. So what if, instead of
wearing what I think makes me look fashionable, or presentable, or
suitably austere, I choose my clothing for church on the basis of how likely it is to make others comfortable?
IC: Spell that out a bit …
how does following that principle play out in a particular situation?
We’re not going to the universal suit-and-tie, are we? So then what?
Tom: Oh, you mean make the
uptight traditionalist or the one-in-a-million visiting businessman
comfortable? I was thinking of neighbors and friends: electricians,
grocery store cashiers, clerks, technicians, handymen — people who
rent a suit for a wedding because they don’t own one. So I figured
something like slacks and a golf shirt: decent enough that it doesn’t
look like I’m slumming, but not so overdone that a visitor feels
massively out of place.
IC: Yeah, I’m not too worried
about the visiting businessman myself, I’ve got to admit. So you’re
suggesting some sort of middle choice, something likely to be
congenial to anyone regardless of his income or familiarity with
custom? Something that would be reasonably unobjectionable to both
our hypothetical businessman, but also unintimidating to someone
whose collars were a bit bluer? Or do you suppose it’s a matter of
indifference what either thinks?
Tom: Well, it seems to me that
the longer anyone thinks about what you’re wearing in church, the
more inappropriate what you’re wearing must be. After all, you
don’t go to church to show off, do you? The ideal choice is so
neutral it provides no distraction at all.
John the Baptist, fancy dresser that he
was, hit on something rather important when he said “He must
increase, but I must decrease”.
Dressing Down
IC: So if you are implying that
a person could be excessively rich and showy in his/her attire, you
are also saying that a person could be equally offensive by
deliberately choosing to “slum it”?
Tom: It entirely depends on the
motive. The question is why are you putting this or that on? Is it
about you or about others — and primarily about what you
believe honors the Lord and will best serve his purposes: “Each should be fully convinced in his own mind”. And Paul says “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”. That goes right down to what you eat and drink, and certainly to what
you wear.
So motive is everything. “This will
get me looked at” is a bad motive. “This will show them!” is a
bad motive. A poor person and a bratty teen could be wearing the same
type of beat-up clothes to church for entirely different reasons. The
one is not offensive at all (and we had best not discriminate against such an individual). The other needs a good talking to.
IC: Since you mention teens,
let’s go there.
Take Me Out to the Ball Game ...
Today, ball caps are highly fashionable, and
for young men in particular. The old, Victorian prohibition against
the wearing of hats indoors is gone: you can wear a ball cap in a
restaurant or other public building without anyone getting offended,
just as you don’t have to tip it to a lady. All that is history
now. So is there any reason a young man cannot wear a ball cap in the
gatherings of the church? If the oldsters are offended, should they
just get over it, just like they’ve had to everywhere else?
Tom: Well, I see no problem
with wearing a ball cap in the church building, between meetings, in
the lobby or while having a coffee and chatting. There’s no magic
in a building. Bricks and mortar are not the “house of God”, the
people are. But for a man, wearing a hat in a meeting of the
church is a different story. The prohibition against that comes from
the apostle Paul, and it has a spiritual significance we are wise not
to ignore. He says, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his
head covered dishonors his head … since he is the image and
glory of God”. Paul’s rationale is not Victorian or cultural at all, nor is it
even based on Jewish law. It goes right back to creation and
therefore remains valid today, even though Queen Victoria and the Law
of Moses are history.
IC: Yes, I see that. The passage
in question, 1 Corinthians 11:4, identifies the head as a symbol
for the Head of the Church, and tells us not to pray or prophesy with
a covered head ... at least in the particular case of males in a
congregational context. Some people argue that’s merely cultural
and historical, but there’s no warrant from the passage for saying
so, and in fact specific warrant for saying it’s not cultural. I would say that even if we are doubtful (and personally, I’m not)
we ought to err on the side of behaving in a way that has NO chance
of dishonoring the Head ... so hats off, lads.
Absorbing the Zeitgeist
Tom: A little aside here. Dress codes are not in vogue. This is a very
individualistic society, and even Christian teenagers may absorb the
zeitgeist. I was reading an article this week about a high school student in Ontario fighting her school’s dress code. She said:
“I think giving the administration that kind of freedom to say ‘This is inappropriate’, or ‘This isn’t’ and pick and choose who gets shamed for what they’re wearing and who doesn’t is extremely disrespectful to young girls …”
So you can see how the issue may be reframed.
IC: A typical child’s
reaction: she’s obviously thinking only of herself, and not
imagining herself as part of a community that sets appropriate
standards for its own situation to which she might have some duty,
obviously. But surely the church is not to model its decision-making
on the petulant backlash of a teenage girl, right?
A Mixed Multitude
Tom: On any given day, a local
church is a mix of visitors, immature Christians, unsaved kids from
Christian homes who attend because their families do … in
other words, any number of people who might overreact to having
an inappropriate hat or other piece of clothing called to their attention.
How do you handle the situation of the
guy in the row in front of you that you don’t know who’s still
wearing his headgear when the meeting starts? Or do you handle it
at all?
IC: Point taken. But the normal
congregant needs to learn that they are part of a community, and that
community has standards … not merely its own, but standards
given in scripture by revelation of the Head of the Church. That is
the responsibility of the elders, of course, and not a mandate for
ordinary congregants to police things.
Tom: Yes, a word out of season can do quite a bit of damage if it’s delivered in the wrong spirit.
IC: Essentially, the biblical
principles need to be established clearly to everyone before any
controversy takes place, then insisted upon without prejudice
afterward. That way there can be no reasonable objection. (Of
course, unreasonable ones are still possible: but then, they are
always possible.)
The Inevitable Awkward Situation Hypothetical
Tom: Okay, then, suppose you’re the father of a teenage girl who has not yet
committed her life to the Lord, but is still (perhaps grudgingly)
willing to attend church with the family because she’s always done
it. And as happens these days with teenage girls, she’s pushing the
envelope: the skirts are getting shorter and shorter, to the point
where it’s both inappropriate and a potential distraction. This is
not really a hypothetical by the way: I’ve seen it many times. How,
as a dad, do you handle it? I’m pretty sure you’re not keen on
waiting for the elders to step in ...
IC: I suggest the father (or
mother) should handle this one. After all, he’s the parent, the one
who has a mature sense of what is appropriate in a given context. And
if he’s choosing not to handle it, then the problem is really his
more than hers. He’s the adult. She’s a child — his child.
Now, if he doesn’t, and if it becomes
a problem to the point that the elders are concerned her preening and
self-promotion is becoming tasteless, then I think they should
discuss it with the father, express any concerns, and find out what
is motivating his choices in not dealing with it. They may agree or
not, but there’s no reason discussion cannot remain reasonable,
even if the elders do need to say something. Everybody needs tact.
What’s your solution?
Motivation and Influence
Tom: Oh, I agree about the tact.
So much depends on motive, again. It could be a child with permissive
parents. This is what she wears to school all week. All her friends
dress the same way, and she's never really thought too much about it.
On the other hand, she could be sending the message that she's no
longer interested in playing church and is looking to provoke
conflict so she has an excuse to stop going. And I suppose there are
other possibilities. I don’t think you can address the question of
the clothes without at least attempting to get her to talk about what
she thinks of Jesus Christ. Well, you can, but simply getting her to
conform is not addressing the real need.
IC: No. The problem, though, as
always, is that what she does is not a private matter. If she’s
acting out in public, then she’s conditioning the situation of
others — her peers, the adults and children who are watching
her example. That she may have no consciousness of her duty to anyone
but herself would suggest egocentricity, immaturity or rebellion. And
certainly the antics of a child cannot be allowed to dictate the
conditions of congregational life, no matter how passionate she is in
proclaiming her “right” to do as she pleases.
I teach ethics. The first thing anyone
has to learn about ethics is that they are not actually private
matters. Ethics are not about what we would do if we were the only
person alive, and thus were completely free to make our own choices:
they’re about how we treat others … about how we take our
place in community.
Who Wrote the Dress Code?
Tom: You’re right, the situation
must certainly be dealt with, and not simply because old ladies might
complain. Allowing her to continue dressing inappropriately gives her
the wrong impression that she’s the center of the universe, but it
also, as you say, may incline others who are naturally more reticent
to follow her example. The church belongs to Christ and exists for
his glory, not for the pleasure of those who are its members and
certainly not for the pleasure of those extended family members who
attend without any real commitment or knowledge of what they’re there for.
So while I would prefer that the situation be handled with a sensitivity to the
greater spiritual issues at stake in the girl’s life, it must
ultimately be handled. If she — or anyone — thinks
asserting wardrobe independence trumps obedience to the Head of the
Church (“women should adorn themselves ... with modesty and self-control”, says the apostle Paul), then their issue is with him.
IC: Well, and men should too, of
course. It may be true that males tend to be at a disadvantage aesthetically …
but there are other ways to show off, and nobody should be doing any
of them. The meetings of the church are not about “me” —
not about my rights, my self-expression, my style, my looks, my
clothes or my preferences. Our gatherings are firstly for the honor
of the Head of the Church, and secondarily for the edification,
fellowship and blessing of his people as a whole.
Only as a distant third do my wishes
and inclinations figure at all, really.
A couple thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI oppose dressing down, if it is done in an attempt to prove a point. Likewise dressing up if done to put ourselves on display.
I do dress up with a tie and sometimes a jacket, when preaching. I want to be sure that I am not giving offense to the listeners. If they are scandalized by the sermon, so be it; but I don't want them scandalized by a Mark Driscoll wannabe.
In general, dress pants, collared short and maybe a tie, seems the best path for me on a average Sunday morning, so as to not give offense and be comfortable.
I don't wear track pants outside the house (ever) so I wouldn't wear them to a meeting.
I do visit a church sometimes where the majority of people dress in regular street clothes. I've found that people are not offended by a tie, if you just take time to get to know people and chat with them.
In general, I walk the middle path so as to not give offense.