Featured Is it important to "dress up" for church?

It's not rich vs. poor. That dichotomy is a con taught be dishonest preachers and believed by what I identified as category #2 of the two groups of people who dress casually in church (they like to quote from 1 Timothy 2, but they have no understanding of what the passage means). If there's any relevance to it, in churches today, the poor tend to dress up more than the affluent. Go to a poor black church and try to find a woman not in a dress or deacon wearing jeans. Go to a rich suburb church, and you'll find lots of women in pants and men jeans.

 

Oh, have you done this research personally?

 

Yes, they did. The soldiers at the crucifixion wouldn't have gambled for Jesus' clothing if he were wearing the equivalent of jeans and a t-shirt. The OT has significant instructions on how people should dress, which would have been followed by the Jewish converts to Christianity. The NT warns against immodest dress, which includes dressing like a slob or like trash, just as much as it includes ostentatious dress.

The irreverent and the unintelligent have always dressed relatively casually. It's the nature of the beast. But, it doesn't matter how people dressed then. People who dress relatively casually today fall into the two categories I have already described, regardless of how people dressed in the past.

 

I'm calling Bull on your post.

Most churches for the last few decades are so casual that they only person who would feel the need-to-leave the service for being under-dressed is the guy who shows up with no shirt and no shoes. In the past, everyone would expect that they would need to dress up for church, until you and people holding your view taught them otherwise.

You say your casual dress at church is a personal choice. Of that, I have no doubt.

1) Paul called those people who would stumble weak. Are you calling casual dressers weak? (I am.)

2) Paul and Jesus drank wine and ate meat. Their desire not to cause people to stumble did not extend to full abstinence. They coddled people when necessary, but they didn't change their lifestyles to coddle people, as you argue for us to do.

3) Paul taught approvingly of eating meat. His desire not to cause people to stumble did not include teaching them that eating meat is wrong, but you teach that dressing with reverence is wrong. Casual dress is a contributor to the free fall of American Christianity. You are causing people to stumble.

4) The verse you quote about causing people to stumble concerns Old Testament teaching against non-kosher foods, of which all Jewish converts were raised with. Dressing like a slob has never had any legitimacy.

Really? You think someone putting on blue jeans for church is seeking praise from God?????? LOL!

Matthew 22:11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

Why would I dress up to get together with my brothers and sisters, edify them with God's word, come alongside them in time of need, weep with them, rejoice with them and praise the Lord with them?
Apologies, but I cannot find a reason.

If it were a wedding, maybe.
Funeral, perhaps.

But not to see my brothers and sisters when we get together to talk about the things of God..
We've nothing to hide, and we certainly have no one to impress.

Poor sinners saved by grace...
I'm also reminded of this passage, which was referenced already by several:

James 2:1-13.

 

Sources?

 

It is your right to be wrong.

 

Do you own research and get back to me when you can reply with more than a single word.

 

" Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." ( Luke 23:34 ).

" Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did." ( John 19:23-24 ).

The passage here in John says that they parted His clothes so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
Here is the Scripture the soldiers were fulfilling:

" For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." ( Psalms 22:16-18 ).

It had nothing to do with the value of His clothing.


May He bless greatly you in your studies.

 

Going to church dressed like Joe the rag man is another sign of our casual, uncommitted, irreverent, form of "Christianity" we practice today.

 

Three Things:
1. Just this past week one of our nursery workers commented on how the young boys ripped and romped when they wore jeans and acted wonderful when they wore dress clothes. She also liked how cute they looked when they were dressed up.

2. In my experience the kindest deacons I have served with always dressed as well as they were able. I currently have 10 deacons I serve with and we a a fairly casual church family. But one man always dresses in at least a coat and tie. He is the humblest, servant-like deacon I have ever served with in 34 years of ministry.

3. I have pastored in some very casual churches, but unless there is some extraordinary reason I will always wear a suit and tie. As Jerry Clower would say, " My Ancestors would get me" if I did anything less.

 

It's important. If you were invited to the White House to meet with the President, you would dress up in your very best. Is the President more worthy of your respect than the King of Kings? I think not. Case closed.

 

Do you wear a tuxedo to church? Did you to your wedding (if you had one), or as part of the wedding party? If you did, are you giving greater respect to the couple than to God? Besides, if anyone has a tuxedo and does not wear it to church, is he holding back from giving his very best to the King of Kings?

 

Sorry, I can't go along with such anti-intellectual, contemptible nonsense. None of the soldiers said to each other "Let's draw lots because prophesy says we'll do it." Rather, they would have said something like, "Wow, those are some nice threads. I want them."

In complete contradiction to your position, the Bible tells that they cast lots to avoid the damage that would have resulted if they divided Jesus' seamless garment for those who wanted it.

Prophesy doesn't require that the players in prophesy don't have secular and personal motivations. And, being a Christian doesn't require that you remove your brain from your skull.

Because you have capacity for respect, so you dress without respect for your brothers and sisters (you couldn't even confirm that you'd dress up for one of their weddings, even after they spend thousands of dollars on decorating their venue and dressing nice themselves). Because you go to church for the wrong reason, to hang out with your "brothers and sisters" rather than to worship God? Because you don't understand the function of clothing, so you dress only to conform to secular society's minimum standards to shop at Walmart?

You asked, and I don't make a practice of telling white lies.

 

No it's not. The filthy clothes would be a result of one's poverty.

 

All other things being equal, one's attire is a direct reflection of his attitude toward himself and toward others. As ambassadors, our attire should reflect an attitude of respect, reverence and ...

...dare I say it?


Gravity.

 

Jesus was no common criminal. From the point of view of the Jews and the Romans, He was rather notorious. That, in my honest, erudite, and imminently insightful opinion, would be where the value in His raiment would be.

It would be like having one of Al Capone's hats.

One could make a buck on that.

 

It seems Sunday was a workday for the early Christians. So wouldn't they meet wearing their work clothes? Would Paul pack anything more than a change of duds in his journeys?

 

You're ignoring that the Bible implies Jesus' clothing was inherently valuable because it was seamless, made of one peace of material. And, your comparison with Al Capone's hats practically contradicts your own argument. Al Capone didn't wear old baseball caps. He ware nice leather hats. And a hat itself is an example of something used when people want to dress up. Al Capone's hats had value, even apart from Al Capone.

I doubt the soldiers would have cared about Jesus' clothing for celebrity value. Unless Jesus was wearing something truly valuable because of its obvious uniqueness and quality, the soldiers couldn't have profited from it because no one would believe it was really Jesus' clothing. I'd have to have serious brain damage to think "Hey bud, these common blue jeans were worn by Jesus. They're yours for $500" could be a thing.

Jesus wasn't a halfwit who couldn't appreciate the importance of dress. Jesus wasn't a jerk running around showing no respect, in his dress, for those around him.