Does Your Church Have A Dress Code?

[OldRegular]

Where is your evidence that pants were made solely for men? Where is your evidence that dresses were made solely made for women? Kilts are acceptable for Scots, so if a Scottish preacher preaches in a kilt, would you leave?

It seems you are being deliberately obtuse. I said and it is a fact that for hundreds of years in the western culture men wore pants [Excluding the Scots who on occasion wore kilts.] and women wore dresses. Do you deny that? If so then we have nothing to discuss.

Go to another culture like Hindu or Buddhist or Japanese and you would find a different style of dress. The style is irrelevant. The passage from Deuteronomy simply states that men and women should not wear each others clothes.

Some more recent translations of Deuteronomy 22:5:

ASV A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

NASB “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

GLT There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Jehovah your God.

YLT ‘The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

NIV A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.[/QUOTE]

 

[OldRegular]

OldRegular, I just had to chuckle when you declared "Mrs. Mohler is correct". Did you click the link and see the lady modeling a Mrs.-Albert-Mohler-approved dressy pantsuit?

Baptist Press

Would that lady be welcome at a church following your code?

I brlirvr the emphasis in the two quotes you provided had to do with decorum and modesty. As I recall you did not provide a linkAs for a Church following my code I have no code. I am simply discussing a passage of Scripture and pointing out that the dress of young women and teenagers is immodest and that the dress of both men and women in some meetings of the Churches is deplorable.

 

[OldRegular]

CARM's wrong, and I've seen that "definition" before. "Legalism" is excessive adherence to any law or formula, and the "legalism" dress codes in the church adhere to are the pious attitudes of those who think they have a right to dictate to others about how they worship the Lord God Almighty. News for those of you that describes: He don't care!!!

Proverbs 51, NASB
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.​

... no matter how it dresses. If a man or woman comes into a church seeking Him in rags, pleading for forgiveness, understanding, and salvation -- crying, "Be merciful to me, O God, a sinner!" -- He isn't going to say to him/her, "Nope, gotta go home and change into something presentable before I'll hear you." However, it appears there are some churches represented on this forum that just might.

I have always enjoyed your posts and believed they were well thought out. However you are reading something into this discussion that is not there, at least from my viewpoint. I am talking about permissible or proper dress in a worship service and have given Scripture to support my position. I have also noted that much of the dress of those in a worship service is immodest if not downright provocative. That cannot be denied.

I have said nothing in any way regarding how God looked on person seeking Salvation.

You say:

"Legalism" is excessive adherence to any law or formula, and the "legalism" dress codes in the church adhere to are the pious attitudes of those who think they have a right to dictate to others about how they worship the Lord God Almighty.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion on legalism, correct or not! I have a few questions related to dictating worship forms.

Does the Church you attend insist on certain core Baptist beliefs for membership?

Does the Church you attend allow snake handling?

Does the Church you attend allow speaking in tongues if an interpreter is present?

Does the Church you attend allow speaking in tongues at all?

Does the Church you attend welcome those who believe in the Doctrines of Election and Sovereign Grace?

Does the Church you attend welcome those who reject the dispensational theology?

Does the Church you attend insist on a Seminary educated preacher?

Does the Church you attend allow women to preach?

Does the Church you attend allow women to serve as deacons or Elders?

Does the Church you attend place restrictions on those who serve as deacons or Elders?

Does the Church you attend endorse/perform/bless homosexual unions/marriages?

Does the Church you attend insist on immersion as the proper mode of Baptism?

Does the Church you attend allow those who desire to sing in the choir, or is that restricted to those who sing well?

Does the Church you attend serve communion to unbelievers or the unbaptized?

i am sure that I can fine other questions for you. However, I pose none of these to start a separate discussion simply to indicate that those who constitute the local Church do indeed place restrictions on the conduct of the worship services. This is as it should be since the Apostle Paul in discussing the worship service said: 1 Corinthians 14:40. Let all things be done decently and in order.

If you can find any post where I have commented on dress as it relates to individual worship I would appreciate it other than I have noted the provocative dress of some young women might affect the worship of the pastor or men with roving eyes. I have used the term "worship service" on occasion rather than a "meeting of the Church", but that was not in reference to individuals worship.

 

[convicted1]

Everything Mrs. Mohler shared, I am in complete agreement with. Everything. But in the link posted by Brother P4T, it had commentaries by Adam Clarke, John Gill, and two Jewish Rabbis who stated the proper translation was that warriors shouldn't wear women's attire, and vice versa. Men getting prepared for battle need armour and not women's attire, and women shouldn't wear armour, seeing they aren't to go into battle.

Also, the pick in that article about Mrs. Mohler and modest church attire, that women was wearing a pants suit. I agree that we need to look presentable at church, but God looks upon the heart, and not the outward appearance. Why? Because the outside is a reflection of the inside.

 

[OldRegular]

Everything Mrs. Mohler shared, I am in complete agreement with. Everything. But in the link posted by Brother P4T, it had commentaries by Adam Clarke, John Gill, and two Jewish Rabbis who stated the proper translation was that warriors shouldn't wear women's attire, and vice versa. Men getting prepared for battle need armour and not women's attire, and women shouldn't wear armour, seeing they aren't to go into battle.

Also, the pick in that article about Mrs. Mohler and modest church attire, that women was wearing a pants suit. I agree that we need to look presentable at church, but God looks upon the heart, and not the outward appearance. Why? Because the outside is a reflection of the inside.

I read Gill's comments. He was reputed to be a great Hebrew scholar. However given the construct of the Verse i believe he is wrong. It is also significant that no modern translations differs much from the KJV; they speak of clothes not armor or weapons.

ASV A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

NASB “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

GLT There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Jehovah your God.

YLT ‘The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

NIV A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.[/QUOTE]

If Gill is correct why would the passage say a man should not put on a woman's garments?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Time for a radical change in this discussion:

suppose a husband and wife showed up at church, in their bathing suit?

To my knowledge, my old church wouldn't have turned them out. I don't know of any church in my area that would. (But I can't say that none would, either.) If they were guests, they'd be accepted, but perhaps with a bit of a talking to later on if they kept coming. If they were members, they were held to a higher standard.

At my current church, not entirely sure, but from what I've heard probably much the same treatment. I've heard one of the workers state that if someone showed up in a mesh suit that covered very little, they'd be the first to welcome them because they want them to feel welcome and not turned away. That's not to say that their method of dress would be approved of. Likely they would get pulled aside quietly at some point to talk about it, but no sure if that'd be on their first visit.

 

[evenifigoalone]

At my previous church, women were expected to wear dresses. One time I showed up in pants because I had just gotten back from visiting my dad in the hospital and didn't have time to change. I apologized for it, knowing their stance. They didn't make any sort of deal out of it.
Another time several years back I showed up in my church dress, but had swimming lessons before church (or something like that) and wasn't completely dry by the time I had to leave for church...so you can imagine what that was like. I was asked about it (and embarrassed), but nothing else.

 

[convicted1]

Brother, I know the other translations use the word clothing. And I honestly have zero problem. The rub comes in when a pair of pants becomes a "test of fellowship".


And I wasn't trying to be obtuse, either. In Exodus 44, the Levites(the tribe that were solely priests), they wore breeches(according to Exodus 28 they covered from the loins to the thigh{sounds like shorts to me}) and a bonnet. So I guess they need to wear a bonnet when they preach, too? If Exodus 22:5 is applicable now, so does Exodus 28:42, and Exodus 44:18.

I am bowing out now. I know I won't change your mind, and this isn't a hill worth dying on. But a woman can look like a woman w/o wearing a dress.

 

[OldRegular]

Brother, I know the other translations use the word clothing. And I honestly have zero problem. The rub comes in when a pair of pants becomes a "test of fellowship".

Willis,

I have said absolutely about dress being a test of fellowship. However a congregation is not a Church unless there is order and discipline.

And I wasn't trying to be obtuse, either. In Exodus 44, the Levites(the tribe that were solely priests), they wore breeches(according to Exodus 28 they covered from the loins to the thigh{sounds like shorts to me}) and a bonnet. So I guess they need to wear a bonnet when they preach, too? If Exodus 22:5 is applicable now, so does Exodus 28:42, and Exodus 44:18.

No bonnet but linen breeches under their robes to cover their nakedness. Verse 42.

I am bowing out now. I know I won't change your mind, and this isn't a hill worth dying on. But a woman can look like a woman w/o wearing a dress.

Not always!

 

[convicted1]

Willis,

I have said absolutely about dress being a test of fellowship. However a congregation is not a Church unless there is order and discipline.

I agree about order and discipline. But a woman wearing pants isn't out of order. I will concede this point, however. If a woman wears pants and it offends others, then she should not wear them to church. It's about the church as a whole, and not one person's wants.

No bonnet but linen breeches under their robes to cover their nakedness. Verse 42.

I didn't think they had a robe over their linen breeches. I re-read that.

Not always!

Agree. There are some that try to make themselves look manly, and that's wrong.

 

[JonC]

I agree about order and discipline. But a woman wearing pants isn't out of order. I will concede this point, however. If a woman wears pants and it offends others, then she should not wear them to church. It's about the church as a whole, and not one person's wants.

I didn't think they had a robe over their linen breeches. I re-read that.

Agree. There are some that try to make themselves look manly, and that's wrong.

:thumbsup: I believe that the passage is referring to a principle, not a legalistic adherence to what types of clothes are appropriate for ages to come.

 

[nodak]

As I said before, we don't dress "up" for church because we dress appropriately and modestly all the time, and scripture seems to forbid dressing "up".

We have children in our town that don't get enough food. As a Christian, I am offended when men spend hundreds of dollars on a suit for church. Decent pair of jeans and decent shirt would have clothed them modestly, and they could have put the difference to feeding the kids.

So IF the idea a woman must wear a dress to church if someone is offended by her wearing pants holds any water, THEN men have to stop wearing suits, as they offend me.

 

[pk4life]

That response is pathetic!

you say James 2 is speaking of preferential treatment, yet don't see how a dress code ushers in preferential treatment.

It's simple sense to say, if the dress code is a suit and tie for men, and a dress for women, that anyone NOT wearing that non-scriptural dress code, would get a different treatment than those who do.

I've seen it. If someone can't sing special music without the proper attire, that IS the preferential treatment James 2 speaks of.

And YES, if you attend the churches I speak of you would get preferential treatment.

 

[SaggyWoman]

Dress code: Wear clothes.

 

[InTheLight]

Dress code: Wear clothes.

Yes! I was wondering if anyone bothered to click on the link of if they simply launched into their take on what should be worn to church.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

As I said before, we don't dress "up" for church because we dress appropriately and modestly all the time, and scripture seems to forbid dressing "up".

Out of curiosity, if you were taking your wife out to a nice restaurant for Valentine's Day, how would you dress?

We have children in our town that don't get enough food. As a Christian, I am offended when men spend hundreds of dollars on a suit for church.

OK. I'll bite: How will my not showing my reverence for God in the way I dress feed those children?

So IF the idea a woman must wear a dress to church if someone is offended by her wearing pants holds any water, THEN men have to stop wearing suits, as they offend me.

But is your "offense" reasonable? Or is it just a way to brag that you're somehow more pious because you dress casually for church?

 

[RIPP0NWV]

Out of curiosity, if you were taking your wife out to a nice restaurant for Valentine's Day, how would you dress?

Out of curiosity, what business is it of yours how someone would dress in relation to going out to eat with their spouse?

OK. I'll bite: How will my not showing my reverence for God in the way I dress feed those children?

How he dresses or feeds his children is none of your business.

But is your "offense" reasonable? Or is it just a way to brag that you're somehow more pious because you dress casually for church?

Yes, show your respect for the Lord with your tuxedo while you drive your John Deere golf cart to church.

 

[InTheLight]

Out of curiosity, what business is it of yours how someone would dress in relation to going out to eat with their spouse?

He's trying to apply the world's standards for dress to a fancy dinner to how we should dress for church.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

He's trying to apply the world's standards for dress to a fancy dinner to how we should dress for church.

No, actually, I'm not trying to do that at all.

Don't worry, though. I have confidence in Nodak's ability to answer the question, even if you two don't.

 

[RIPP0NWV]

No, actually, I'm not trying to do that at all.

Don't worry, though. I have confidence in Nodak's ability to answer the question, even if you two don't.

Then do us all a favor and refrain from posting.