Beware of Worldly Dressing

[mikedsjr]

None of that is in the Bible.

File under 'man made gospel'. Move on.

Exactly. Mysticism. Romanticism. People wonder how Mormonism started. It started like this thread.

 

[Xalith]

Exactly. Mysticism. Romanticism. People wonder how Mormonism started. It started like this thread.

But yet going too far in the other direction breeds a congregation that refuses to step outside of the Bible for one second, and believes that He never talks to us by any means other than the Bible, which sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

The Bible is good, and it is holy, but yet at the same time, the NT was written nearly 2,000 years ago. It is a good framework for finding Christ, and understanding the various truths of how things are, and it is a good general guide and no matter how many times you read it, there's always something new to be found.

However...

To think that God and/or Jesus would be absolutely silent after John's Revelation, and never speak to anybody whatsoever for nearly 2,000 years and counting is a bit absurd IMO.

Why do you think the Bible instructs us to "test the spirits"? Do you think it was only talking about preachers? And if it were only talking about preachers, then why doesn't it say to "test ministers" or "test whose who exhort" or "test those who prophesy" (remember: "prophesy" != "predicting the future")? It doesn't say that, does it?

No, it says "Test the spirits". Spirits, IMO, is a collective word that means anything that one might attribute to God -- dreams, visions, thoughts that come to you out of the blue that you couldn't have possibly come up with on your own, etc. You're to test them with Scripture. If they agree with Scripture, then you can rest assured they probably did come from God.

The dream in the OP, I'm hesitant because it fails the Scripture Test. Would God truly send Saved Christians to Hell for wearing makeup and jeans? I highly doubt that and Scriptures support my opinion of that.

But to say ALL dreams are bogus is wrong too, as I've had a few dreams (as well as a few 'random thoughts out of nowhere') that I know came from God, and I tested them using the Scriptures and they agreed or at the very least, did not conflict with them.

And the Bible itself says that we shall dream dreams and have visions in Acts 2:17.

Some people will go "He wasn't talking about today".... but I beg to differ.

First, Acts 2:17 says "in the last days". Verse 20 talks about the Sun becoming dark and the moon turning to blood "before the notable day of the Lord comes". This is obviously Eschatology.

Many people believe that we are getting close due to various reasons of things happening in the world around us. Islam/ISIS on the rise, the USA getting deeper and deeper into sin collectively, and just general disorder all over the world going on.

If these are indeed the "last days" (they could mean any time period), then we should expect to see dreams and visions. However, to go around teaching that all dreams and visions are bogus is actually going against Scripture.

We should definitely discern and test these, we shouldn't automatically throw them out the window.

 

[Catherineanne]

Exactly. Mysticism. Romanticism. People wonder how Mormonism started. It started like this thread.

That is not quite right; mysticism is simply an awareness that there is another world apart from this one, and is the reason for our prayers. Other than that, I agree.

 

[Catherineanne]

But yet going too far in the other direction breeds a congregation that refuses to step outside of the Bible for one second, and believes that He never talks to us by any means other than the Bible, which sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Who is advocating such behaviour? Anyone at all? Thought not.

You are tilting at windmills.

 

[mikedsjr]

Xalith, why do you bring up 1 John 4 and Acts 2 and don't deal with the context. You are wrong on both. The text guides how one should interpret. And believing everything applies today is foolish. Proper context helps us understand their concerns back then, which may not apply today in total. Acts 2, Peter clearly explained why he quoted Joel. John 4, John clearly explains who he is warning about.

 

[Brokenhill]

Newsflash: Women do not dress to please men. We dress to please ourselves, and to express something of who we are. That expression is a personal choice, and it is up to any woman to decide upon, nobody else. As such a woman cannot sin by what she wears, because it is an expression of who she is. Sin is about behaviour, not identity. Clothes are about identity.

Evidence; how many women have asked their husbands, partners, boyfriends, brothers or dads; 'Do you like my new dress?' only to meet a blank look, and an admission that they never even noticed? Pretty well all of us, I would think.

Some woman dress to please themselves, some to compete with other women, some to please men, and some: a combination of the three.

Choosing what clothes to wear is a behavior. But even if it was just an identity--our identity should lie with Christ. So, God has the right to decide what men and women wear.

One again, I partially agree with you. Should I not enjoy and wear a Versace brand garment that is given to me as a gift? Avoiding brand names for the sake of the poor sounds to me like Judas complaining about the perfume being poured on Jesus.
Matthew 26:
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

The poor will always be with us. I agree that having excess stuff is not good. But that does not mean one has to wear shabby clothing, shoes, and tin for jewelry to prove right standing with our Father.

I'm not sure if that example specifically applies...Jesus' time on earth was the most special occasion. If we also look at the story of Mary/Martha, where Mary was listening to Jesus teach and Martha was upset because she was trying to serve her guests and needed Mary's help...Jesus says that Mary chose the better thing. Martha serving was a good thing, but listening to Jesus was better because of how special a time on earth that was and that learning the revelation of the new coveneant was far more important than serving people. So likewise, I see that if the perfume was sold to the poor it would have been a good thing, but because Jesus was present and it was a gift to Him, that was the better thing.

But I see where you're coming from. I agree that there are exceptions. And I want to clarify to everyone that i'm not trying to spell out a hard/fast or black & white rule here. I'm just trying to emphasize that the more modest we try to be, the more Godly of a decision we're making. I'm certainly not perfect about this.

 

[Brokenhill]

If going to a wedding, for example, most Christian women in North America would not wear jeans and flip flops, but a fairly new and even maybe colorful outfit, probably heels that are reasonably high, earrings and facial coloring: lips, eyelids and cheeks. Most Christian men would wear a suit and newish-looking necktie and polished shoes.

This is not being arrogant; this would simply be regarded as courtesy in relation to the event.

I 100% agree that there is a time a place for certain attire. I am all about functional attire. Special functions demand certain clothes, and certain jobs of employment require certain outfits.
But wouldn't you agree that there' a difference between having a generic suit from JC Penny vs. a 100% custom-tailored Italian suit with all kinds of trim and pizzaz?
Or wearing a suit occasionally vs. every single day of your life when your job doesn't demand it...just for the appearance of things.

Up until only 100 years or so ago fabric was immensely expensive and most people would only have one set of clothing; even rich people might only have 4 or 5 changes of clothes, and royalty perhaps 20; far less than we would consider normal for everyday people.

The idea that first century people had a wardrobe of clothes to choose from, and that they would avoid one kind of clothing one day, and wear it the next, is anachronistic. The majority would have one set of homespun clothing, probably undyed. If dyes were used they would be natural ones; greens and browns. Women would spin wool into thread and weave cloth themselves to make a new set of clothing when necessary, but they would not have the kind of choice we have today when we look in our wardrobes.

Injunctions in Scripture to avoid flaunting wealth or extravagant clothing are not aimed at everyday people. They are aimed at those with excessive wealth, and excessive wardrobes to match.

I didn't mean to imply that. My point was that they would make or purchase simple clothing even if they could afford a dyed garment.

America is the most excessive country in the world. To the point where it's disgusting--just look at how much food we waste on a daily basis. Let alone everything else we throw away in this disposable society.
Everyday Americans are very much subject to the scripture regarding riches of the world. The poorest Americans are richer than majority of the world's population. So for someone to suggest that even lower-middle class Americans aren't subject to those scriptures is quite ridiculous.

 

[Brokenhill]

And I disagree with the idea of dressing up for church. Putting on our "Sunday best". That idea is completely against scripture and can cause problems amongst brethren. Not only aiding in lust, but also jealousy or even guilt among those who can't afford such clothing.
For example, the congregation I attend doesn't allow someone to serve on the Lord's Table in shorts...and looks down on wearing shorts in general, which is unfounded in scripture, along with other similar faulty requirements. Those kinds of things shame people even though they're not doing anything wrong. They elevate people in certain attire over those who may be less well off, which means that the principal in James about the sin of partiality is broken.

 

[Xalith]

And I disagree with the idea of dressing up for church. Putting on our "Sunday best". That idea is completely against scripture and can cause problems amongst brethren. Not only aiding in lust, but also jealousy or even guilt among those who can't afford such clothing.
For example, the congregation I attend doesn't allow someone to serve on the Lord's Table in shorts...and looks down on wearing shorts in general, which is unfounded in scripture, along with other similar faulty requirements. Those kinds of things shame people even though they're not doing anything wrong. They elevate people in certain attire over those who may be less well off, which means that the principal in James about the sin of partiality is broken.

Well, wearing shorts to Church is, well, IMO, a bit... too casual?

When you enter a House of the Lord to worship, would you not treat such a time with respect? We're not to worship a church like it's a Holy Temple, but yet it is a place where we choose to gather together to worship the Lord. Jesus tells us in Scripture that when two or more people are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst. Do we want to approach Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, wearing whatever we happened to have found laying on the floor at home before we came in?

I believe in treating anything pertaining to God and the worship of Him with respect and going to Church is one of those things. Putting on our "Sunday Best" is not about lust, it is not about trying to look good in front of people, but rather looking respectable before God.

Question: Would you put on shorts when going to a job interview? How about any kind of meeting at your workplace? Or, even, work itself? How many jobs would you feel comfortable wearing shorts to? (assuming they did not have much physical labor or physical danger). If you wouldn't wear shorts and other similar casual clothing to an employer, why would you wear them when coming to a House of God to worship Him? I would at the very least put on some sort of respectable clothing, at least something that would be acceptable in a semi-professional workplace (at the very least, a decent clean pair of pants and collared shirt for guys, and something similar for women). I'm not talking white-collar suit&tie (though a lot of people do tend to wear that kind of stuff), but at least something halfway respectable surely isn't too much to ask?

As for women and lust, I'm not suggesting that women should be showing up to church with miniskirts and high heels; I'd rather see them wearing modest but respectable looking clothes. Again the idea is not to please people, but to please God. I feel that some kind of forethought and respect goes a long way. No, we aren't required to for salvation, but yet... should we not show our Creator at least some respect? But I suppose in the end, it is up to the individual and each person has their own idea of respect. For example, I for one, never touch the Bible for any serious reading (which does not include simple verse lookup) while I'm doing something else, such as eating. I feel it is disrespectful to His word, to try to read while eating, or doing something else in the background.

When going to Church, I wear at least what would be acceptable for my job in retail; black denim pants and a collared shirt. I wouldn't show up in some old raggedy pair of shorts and tanktop or something. That, to me, speaks of a lack of respect but that's just my opinion.

 

[Brokenhill]

Well, wearing shorts to Church is, well, IMO, a bit... too casual?

When you enter a House of the Lord to worship, would you not treat such a time with respect? We're not to worship a church like it's a Holy Temple, but yet it is a place where we choose to gather together to worship the Lord. Jesus tells us in Scripture that when two or more people are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst. Do we want to approach Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, wearing whatever we happened to have found laying on the floor at home before we came in?

I believe in treating anything pertaining to God and the worship of Him with respect and going to Church is one of those things. Putting on our "Sunday Best" is not about lust, it is not about trying to look good in front of people, but rather looking respectable before God.

Question: Would you put on shorts when going to a job interview? How about any kind of meeting at your workplace? Or, even, work itself? How many jobs would you feel comfortable wearing shorts to? (assuming they did not have much physical labor or physical danger). If you wouldn't wear shorts and other similar casual clothing to an employer, why would you wear them when coming to a House of God to worship Him? I would at the very least put on some sort of respectable clothing, at least something that would be acceptable in a semi-professional workplace (at the very least, a decent clean pair of pants and collared shirt for guys, and something similar for women). I'm not talking white-collar suit&tie (though a lot of people do tend to wear that kind of stuff), but at least something halfway respectable surely isn't too much to ask?

As for women and lust, I'm not suggesting that women should be showing up to church with miniskirts and high heels; I'd rather see them wearing modest but respectable looking clothes. Again the idea is not to please people, but to please God. I feel that some kind of forethought and respect goes a long way. No, we aren't required to for salvation, but yet... should we not show our Creator at least some respect? But I suppose in the end, it is up to the individual and each person has their own idea of respect. For example, I for one, never touch the Bible for any serious reading (which does not include simple verse lookup) while I'm doing something else, such as eating. I feel it is disrespectful to His word, to try to read while eating, or doing something else in the background.

When going to Church, I wear at least what would be acceptable for my job in retail; black denim pants and a collared shirt. I wouldn't show up in some old raggedy pair of shorts and tanktop or something. That, to me, speaks of a lack of respect but that's just my opinion.

That's just the thing...why does contemporary American society have more say in dress for worship than the Bible?
God doesn't care about how we dress for Him, since he can see right through our clothes. He cares about how we dress our heart, for worship services and every day of our lives. I agree that the way we dress should not be about people. But that is what it has become (whether we realize it or not).
Who decides what is "too casual" or "respectable"?

The priests were told to cover their thighs in the OT when going up the steps to make sacrifices on the altar, so that they would not expose themselves to other people below. The new testament only mentions wearing simple, appropriate clothing. And in James when it talks about the rich man coming in with fine clothing, it doesn't give him commendation for his dress nor an encouragement to the poorer to seek finer clothing for gathering together. God doesn't care what we dress in (He is no respecter of persons), EXCEPT in terms of the relationship of us as brothers/sisters. We have to dress in a way that will not cause our brother/sister to stumble, and in a way that's not flashy...because flashiness is not conducive to inner humility.

I attend a "conservative" Church of Christ, and I find it interesting how many people's logic doesn't even add up from a societal stand-point. Women are encouraged to wear dresses, particularly that fall below the knee line. Why? Because anything higher would be too revealing (so they're on the right track as far as preventing stumble blocks). However, a male wearing shorts (below the knee) is inappropriate. That makes no sense...a woman's legs are very much sexualized in general in America, but male legs are absolutely not. Only the rare woman with a leg fetish would have trouble seeing a man's legs.
And i'm not sure if this happens where you guys worship, but we have 3 services a week (Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday PM)...on Sunday AM the preacher wears a suit, tie, and suit-coat. On Sunday, he takes off the suit coat....and on Wednesday night, he wears anythign from a regular dress shirt and dress pants to jeans and a collared shirt. Why the variation? If something is supposedly preferable on Sunday then why is he (and every other man for that matter) not consistent throughout all services? That's because we dress for people/because of societal norms, whether we admit it or not. And these inconsistencies are borderline pharisaical.

I know i'm starting to rant...
I would not wear shorts to an interview. I do where them to work (I work for an engineering firm but they're a younger company and more laid back). My body is a holy temple...I should be adorning myself respectfully every day of my life. If I can wear shorts and a t-shirt on Monday to the mall, then I can wear that same outfit on Sunday with equal appreciation from God. And like you said, yes anywhere 2+ Christians dedicate time/energy to God, He is there. When my wife an I are laying in bed at night in our underwear and are praying together, that's ok...God does not mind. I'm not saying that to be funny.

So I agree with your idea that we should be dressing respectably before God. But my challenge to everyone, is to challenge themselves on what respectable means, FROM SCRIPTURE. Try studying modesty without any wordly bias...just look at scripture without adding conjecture/assumptions and you will be surprised how your opinions might change. And I highly suggest also checking out "What the Early Christians Relived About Modest & Cosmetics" sermon by David Bercot. The early Christian writers aren't gospel...they aren't scripture, but they're within a couple years after Christ left and there is some incredible insight to what they wrote.
_________
But anyway, to everyone invloved in this discussion:
Thank you for your time and challenging me to think and respond. I'm just trying to learn and grow and challenge others to grow as well. God bless you all, I really do wish you the best.

 

[Catherineanne]

I 100% agree that there is a time a place for certain attire. I am all about functional attire. Special functions demand certain clothes, and certain jobs of employment require certain outfits.
But wouldn't you agree that there' a difference between having a generic suit from JC Penny vs. a 100% custom-tailored Italian suit with all kinds of trim and pizzaz?
Or wearing a suit occasionally vs. every single day of your life when your job doesn't demand it...just for the appearance of things.

No, there is no difference.

In either case the person gets to choose how to express themselves and their own identity. There is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong would be if they spend more than they can afford and get into serious debt, but otherwise, no, if they want to dress up every day, then good for them.

The norm in human culture is to dress like those we like, and unlike those we don't. It is not the norm to want to be extravagant, in the way you suggest, unless those we like happen to do so regularly. Clothing is about identity, not morality.

I didn't mean to imply that. My point was that they would make or purchase simple clothing even if they could afford a dyed garment.

Again, this is anachronistic. Most people would only have one set of clothes, which would have to last many years. It was not a matter of choosing what to wear, but of wearing whatever they had.

America is the most excessive country in the world. To the point where it's disgusting--just look at how much food we waste on a daily basis. Let alone everything else we throw away in this disposable society.
Everyday Americans are very much subject to the scripture regarding riches of the world. The poorest Americans are richer than majority of the world's population. So for someone to suggest that even lower-middle class Americans aren't subject to those scriptures is quite ridiculous.

America is not directly addressed in the Scriptures. Any morality has to be inferred from first century morality, and of course excessive consumption is not a good thing. But the Scriptures do not tell Americans how to dress.

 

[Catherineanne]

And I disagree with the idea of dressing up for church. Putting on our "Sunday best". That idea is completely against scripture and can cause problems amongst brethren. Not only aiding in lust, but also jealousy or even guilt among those who can't afford such clothing.
For example, the congregation I attend doesn't allow someone to serve on the Lord's Table in shorts...and looks down on wearing shorts in general, which is unfounded in scripture, along with other similar faulty requirements. Those kinds of things shame people even though they're not doing anything wrong. They elevate people in certain attire over those who may be less well off, which means that the principal in James about the sin of partiality is broken.

Actually, it isn't against Scripture at all. Take a look at Queen Esther, when she goes to see the King. She wears her finest robes, as a mark of respect to him.

When we go to see our King, we do the same.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther 5

There are also restictions in Leviticus about what people who serve in the Temple (ie before the Lord) should wear, in particular saying that nakedness is not appropriate. Your church is right to have restrictions of its own, along those same lines.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+16

I don't mind people who choose not to behave a particular way. I mind very much when they claim to have Scripture to back their opinion, when it is only opinion. Of course a person will wear their best clothes when seeing a King, or at the very least make sure their clothes are clean and tidy if they have no alternatives. And of course those who serve at the Lord's table in a culture which predominantly has a norm of long trousers, should wear long trousers. Casual clothing has its place, but serving at the Lord's table isn't it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not suggesting that women should be showing up to church with miniskirts and high heels; I'd rather see them wearing modest but respectable looking clothes. Again the idea is not to please people, but to please God. I feel that some kind of forethought and respect goes a long way. ...

I do strongly believe in the importance of modesty, which first and foremost is an inward and spiritual thing, and which then radiates outwards.

Regarding the specifics which you mention: well, I'm not sure; I guess it's sometimes a matter of definition. For example, what might have been referred to as a miniskirt 50 years ago, might be regarded as not unusual on churchgoing women today. Maybe we move in different circles, but it seems that high heels abound in church meetings that my wife and I attend to such an extent that they are just not worthy of comment as being anything out of the ordinary. (And those of us who might happen to work from time to time in upscale legal offices may be among professional women who, in the terms of what might have been called miniskirts 50 years ago, might well be seen in such items as part of their outfits, together with high heels, and yet the overall effect of their dress and deportment would still be rather strongly be regarded as formal, sober and restrained.)

But your basic point about respect and pleasing God I do strongly agree with.


bemoxie dot org

(For example, today this outfit would very widely be seen as sober and formal, even though 50 years ago the skirt might happen to have been referred to as a miniskirt. Today, many lawyers at downtown firms and many pastor's wives might well look exactly like this.)

 

[Xalith]

That's just the thing...why does contemporary American society have more say in dress for worship than the Bible?
God doesn't care about how we dress for Him, since he can see right through our clothes. He cares about how we dress our heart, for worship services and every day of our lives. I agree that the way we dress should not be about people. But that is what it has become (whether we realize it or not).
Who decides what is "too casual" or "respectable"?

It is in my opinion that God judges what is in your heart.

Yes, he can see through your clothes, however, he can also see what's in your heart. If you have clothes that you think are respectable, and you wear them because you want to show God respect, God will surely see this, and note this. If you have a lazy attitude about what you wear that you just grab whatever's laying around the house and throw it on without a care in the world, then I'm sure God would notice that as well. Again, it isn't what WE find "pleasing", it is more the thought that counts. Taking a few extra minutes to look respectable because you revere our Creator is mostly the thought behind it.

The priests were told to cover their thighs in the OT when going up the steps to make sacrifices on the altar, so that they would not expose themselves to other people below. The new testament only mentions wearing simple, appropriate clothing. And in James when it talks about the rich man coming in with fine clothing, it doesn't give him commendation for his dress nor an encouragement to the poorer to seek finer clothing for gathering together. God doesn't care what we dress in (He is no respecter of persons), EXCEPT in terms of the relationship of us as brothers/sisters. We have to dress in a way that will not cause our brother/sister to stumble, and in a way that's not flashy...because flashiness is not conducive to inner humility.

There's a difference between "simple" and "lazy". Grabbing the casual stuff laying around your room, IMO, would be "lazy". Simple is more "clothing that is functional, not expensive". For example, I could buy a pair of Wranglers and a Wal*Mart brand collared shirt from Wal*Mart for $30 combined, or I could go to some fine men's clothing place and get the same for $300. That's rather wasteful, to be honest.

I attend a "conservative" Church of Christ, and I find it interesting how many people's logic doesn't even add up from a societal stand-point. Women are encouraged to wear dresses, particularly that fall below the knee line. Why? Because anything higher would be too revealing (so they're on the right track as far as preventing stumble blocks). However, a male wearing shorts (below the knee) is inappropriate. That makes no sense...a woman's legs are very much sexualized in general in America, but male legs are absolutely not. Only the rare woman with a leg fetish would have trouble seeing a man's legs.
And i'm not sure if this happens where you guys worship, but we have 3 services a week (Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday PM)...on Sunday AM the preacher wears a suit, tie, and suit-coat. On Sunday, he takes off the suit coat....and on Wednesday night, he wears anythign from a regular dress shirt and dress pants to jeans and a collared shirt. Why the variation? If something is supposedly preferable on Sunday then why is he (and every other man for that matter) not consistent throughout all services? That's because we dress for people/because of societal norms, whether we admit it or not. And these inconsistencies are borderline pharisaical.

The Preacher is setting aside Sunday because it is traditionally the "Lord's Day", as in, the day He resurrected? Maybe the preacher is just trying to give God (and/or His Son) a little extra respect on Sunday Morning? Is the preacher demanding everybody else do the same? If not, then it isn't pharisaical at all. It's just a little extra respect he likes to show God. Nothing wrong with that.

As for Women and Men, mens' shorts are not frowned upon because of sexuality, but more because shorts are seen as "casual" wear. When many people look at a guy wearing shorts, they think he's dressed casually. He's off work, he's just relaxing, unwinding, enjoying himself. Some preachers probably would rather the church service to be something other than "casual", maybe? Again, I'm not really of a mind that I'd wear shorts to church myself, but that's just me....

So I agree with your idea that we should be dressing respectably before God. But my challenge to everyone, is to challenge themselves on what respectable means, FROM SCRIPTURE. Try studying modesty without any wordly bias...just look at scripture without adding conjecture/assumptions and you will be surprised how your opinions might change. And I highly suggest also checking out "What the Early Christians Relived About Modest & Cosmetics" sermon by David Bercot. The early Christian writers aren't gospel...they aren't scripture, but they're within a couple years after Christ left and there is some incredible insight to what they wrote.

Cultures change. What was acceptable back then, has changed. I don't see anybody running around in robes, togas, etc, do you?

 

[ravindraneee]

The Bible simply commands believers to dress modestly and does not get into any specifics. because that is the only way to address it globally! In America, someone wearing Jeans is perfectly modest. Not so in certain eastern or middle eastern countries. The dressing is culture specific. people perceive dressing differently based on the culture they are brought up. A dress which was considered bad might centuries ago might be moderate today. We cannot pick and choose dressing with legalistic mindset

 

[Brokenhill]

No, there is no difference.

In either case the person gets to choose how to express themselves and their own identity. There is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong would be if they spend more than they can afford and get into serious debt, but otherwise, no, if they want to dress up every day, then good for them.

The norm in human culture is to dress like those we like, and unlike those we don't. It is not the norm to want to be extravagant, in the way you suggest, unless those we like happen to do so regularly. Clothing is about identity, not morality.


Again, this is anachronistic. Most people would only have one set of clothes, which would have to last many years. It was not a matter of choosing what to wear, but of wearing whatever they had.

America is not directly addressed in the Scriptures. Any morality has to be inferred from first century morality, and of course excessive consumption is not a good thing. But the Scriptures do not tell Americans how to dress.

Identity is part of morality.

-That's fine if they only had one pair of clothes. But that one pair would be a plain/simple pair of clothes, even if making/buying a colored set was their choice for personal identity.
-You are not specifically specifically mentioned in the bible.
-1 Tim. 2:9 tells women how to dress. And since the NT is intended for all people until the end of time, American women are therefor subject.
"9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
The scripture speaks for itself on dress.

Actually, it isn't against Scripture at all. Take a look at Queen Esther, when she goes to see the King. She wears her finest robes, as a mark of respect to him.

When we go to see our King, we do the same.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther 5

There are also restictions in Leviticus about what people who serve in the Temple (ie before the Lord) should wear, in particular saying that nakedness is not appropriate. Your church is right to have restrictions of its own, along those same lines.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+16

I don't mind people who choose not to behave a particular way. I mind very much when they claim to have Scripture to back their opinion, when it is only opinion. Of course a person will wear their best clothes when seeing a King, or at the very least make sure their clothes are clean and tidy if they have no alternatives. And of course those who serve at the Lord's table in a culture which predominantly has a norm of long trousers, should wear long trousers. Casual clothing has its place, but serving at the Lord's table isn't it.

-Esther was dressing up for a societal reason. If I was going to meet the president, I would dress up. Last night I went to a wake and I dressed up out of respect for the family. But that principal does not apply for meeting with the body of Christ. Using that scripture to stretch it to NT worship is an opinion.
- That code of dress in Leviticus only applied to the priests. The Old Law has been done away with. If God wanted us to dress in specific or sacred clothing today, He would have detailed it out for us. But He only tells us to dress simply and to not cause our brother to stumble.
-We are in the presence of our King 24/7, and hence should act appropriately all the time.
-"Casual" is not defined in scripture, at least not your definition of it. Shorts are not wrong to wear.
-See James 2: "
1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.
2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes,
3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,"
4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?
5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?
7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors"
Here we see that neither fine garments nor rags are condemned, but showing partiality to one person or the other because of their clothing is condemned. I was not scripturally wrong wearing shorts to church, therefor not letting me serve on the table is similar to "dishonoring" the poor man in James here.

 

[Brokenhill]

It is in my opinion that God judges what is in your heart.

Yes, he can see through your clothes, however, he can also see what's in your heart. If you have clothes that you think are respectable, and you wear them because you want to show God respect, God will surely see this, and note this. If you have a lazy attitude about what you wear that you just grab whatever's laying around the house and throw it on without a care in the world, then I'm sure God would notice that as well. Again, it isn't what WE find "pleasing", it is more the thought that counts. Taking a few extra minutes to look respectable because you revere our Creator is mostly the thought behind it.

There's a difference between "simple" and "lazy". Grabbing the casual stuff laying around your room, IMO, would be "lazy". Simple is more "clothing that is functional, not expensive". For example, I could buy a pair of Wranglers and a Wal*Mart brand collared shirt from Wal*Mart for $30 combined, or I could go to some fine men's clothing place and get the same for $300. That's rather wasteful, to be honest.

The Preacher is setting aside Sunday because it is traditionally the "Lord's Day", as in, the day He resurrected? Maybe the preacher is just trying to give God (and/or His Son) a little extra respect on Sunday Morning? Is the preacher demanding everybody else do the same? If not, then it isn't pharisaical at all. It's just a little extra respect he likes to show God. Nothing wrong with that.

As for Women and Men, mens' shorts are not frowned upon because of sexuality, but more because shorts are seen as "casual" wear. When many people look at a guy wearing shorts, they think he's dressed casually. He's off work, he's just relaxing, unwinding, enjoying himself. Some preachers probably would rather the church service to be something other than "casual", maybe? Again, I'm not really of a mind that I'd wear shorts to church myself, but that's just me....

Cultures change. What was acceptable back then, has changed. I don't see anybody running around in robes, togas, etc, do you?

-When I wear shorts, there is a level of forethrough, that being that they are modest and functional (I live in a place that is summer 2/3 of the year, and at its peak it is over 100 degrees for weeks).
-Casual, as you're defining it, doesn't appear in scripture.
Some people dress nice, but their heart is casual. Some people dress casual, but their heart is very focused. If I dress up my heart for worship, then it doesn't matter what clothes i'm wearing (as long as they're not breaking the commands given in scripture...immodest or going to be a stumbling block to a brother).
-Shouldn't the preacher (and everyone) always be trying to give the same proper respect for God? I don't see how your explanation fits. The truth is, it's a societal reason why people dress a certain way at church, not scriptural. I will correct myself though, our current (new) preacher actually does dress the same every service...but he's the first CoC preacher i've seen do that in my entire lift.
-If the cultural norm becomes attending worship in our underwear and slippers, will you have that same opinion? And I honestly think that kind of thing could happen in my generation.
We can't let American society dictate (or even heavily influence) how we act. If we all let scripture influence our decisions, then globally speaking, we will tear down the walls of our temporary physical societies, and we will unite all as Christians as one spiritual society. And that's how it should be. Sure, there are some things we can't escape in society, and that's fine. And some of that does have to do with clothing (such as the pants discussion from last week). But society can only encroach upon our lives so far...we have to be very careful how much we let our local societies influence us. Our identity and society is suppose to align with God and Christians all over. Even if it means we are weirdos to our contemporaries.

 

[Grafted In]

....and when invited to a friends church it's a good idea to ask. I accepted such an invitation with no other discussion. When I walked in wearing jeans and a tee shirt to my horror I was the only man not wearing a well pressed suit and tie. Not a good feeling.