How Did America Become a Nation of Slobs?

“What does our own sloppy dress tell us about ourselves? Are we too pressed for time to dress a little up rather than way down? Are we rebelling against the idea of beauty and culture? Or are we just too lazy to pull on a pair of slacks instead of wearing the sweats we slept in?” Intellectual Takeout

Discussion

It would seem to me, if a church feels it needs to say something about dress on it’s website even if what they say is “we don’t care how you dress,” then dress actually is something that is important to them. Dress is important enough to them that they will emphasize it. One would think if dress means nothing then we would never mention it at all. On the other hand, if we feel that a person considering visiting our church is going to be concerned enough with how they would dress while attending that we have to say something about dress on our website, it might indicate that even the non-church attender understands that dress does actually convey something, and that they might be wondering what actually is appropriate dress for church or perhaps even corporate worship. While I suppose those who visit our church might feel that dress is important to us, (many dress in suits and ties, or skirts and dresses), we feel no need to say anything about dress on our website even though we have a statement on “what to expect.” I sometimes think the “dress-downers” are more consumed with dress than the “dress-uppers.”

Kirk:

It depends, I guess. My church has a “don’t worry about dressing up” mention on a “what to expect” page, because some people have questions. I just had a lady ask me, in ashamed tones, whether she was obligated to cover her tattoos when she comes to church. I told her nobody cared. But, she was very worried. She thought it would be a terrible issue.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[John E.]

Aaron, I’m not arguing that people should wear whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want. I’m arguing that churches should stop binding people’s conscience by asserting that a suit and tie is the clothing choice that best honors God.

I understand. There are many that try to dismiss the matter completely, or use self-contradictory arguments. To me, the question is complex … and interesting, like everything else that intersects with where we are culturally vs. where we used to be (and where we never have been).

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

In both the Old and New Testament the single common denominator in worship, whether corporate or individual, is reverence. Irreverence in worship is intolerable to God at every level, even being defined as an abomination, a very narrow subset of specifically grievous sin.

While a specific dress for corporate worship (church) is very difficult to define, and possibly shouldn’t be attempted, the obvious move among the contemporary church culture, particularly involving dress via website statements, for what may only be described as planned irreverence is unconscionable.

Say “church clothes” to most Americans and their mind will likely conjure up a fairly narrow fashion statement.

Lee

[Lee]

Say “church clothes” to most Americans and their mind will likely conjure up a fairly narrow fashion statement.

…..I say (and if necessary define and/or clarify the meaning of) “church clothes” (in their native language, of course) to a contemporary resident of Fiji? Or Zambia? Or Costa Rica? Or Haiti? Or Nigeria? Or Finland? Or Nepal? Or Ecuador? Or _____________?

Or what if the question was asked of residents of various historical times (let alone places)? Would I get the same response in 2018 as in 1818, or 1618, or 1218, or 818, or in 68 AD?

Will their responses “likely conjure up a [similar] fairly narrow fashion statement”?

[Larry Nelson] I say (and if necessary define and/or clarify the meaning of) “church clothes” (in their native language, of course) to a contemporary resident of Fiji? Or Zambia? Or Costa Rica? Or Haiti? Or Nigeria? Or Finland? Or Nepal? Or Ecuador? Or _____________?

Or what if the question was asked of residents of various historical times (let alone places)? Would I get the same response in 2018 as in 1818, or 1618, or 1218, or 818, or in 68 AD?

Will their responses “likely conjure up a [similar] fairly narrow fashion statement”?

The more relevant questions are what would they say here and now (because we don’t live in any of those other places and times), and then for context what would they say here in 1950, 1850 and in England in 1750?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]

The more relevant questions are what would they say here and now (because we don’t live in any those other places and times) , and then for context what would they say here in 1950, 1850 and in England in 1750?

As John Ellis has been arguing, “church clothes” / “Sunday best” is a social/societal construct, the product of one’s locale, culture, social stratum, era, etc.

If one truly believes that wearing a suit & tie shows more reverence to God than, say, wearing business casual (1 Samuel 16:7, et al notwithstanding), then why stop at wearing merely a suit? A common business suit is actually (at best) third-tier in the strata of men’s formal attire:

https://www.realmenrealstyle.com/guide-dress-codes-men/

So if one can afford black tie, or better yet white tie, if it truly is more reverential to wear more formal attire, then aren’t we who potentially could afford higher tiers of formal attire dishonoring God by settling for mere business suits?

As I see it, there are two problems in addressing this issue. 1) The “Sunday Best” crowd who equate proper church attire with shirts and ties, and are trying to maintain that “standard” despite the absence of Biblical support. That looks a lot like Pharisaism. 2) The “come as you are” crowd who equate casual attire with true enlightened spirituality, primarily to oppose the first group. This looks a lot like trying to be cool. A pox on both your houses. It would appear that both groups tend to be too focused upon outward appearance. There are some valid points on both sides, but do we have to have yet another issue to divide the body of Christ?

G. N. Barkman

In the context of this discussion (with fundamentalists), the division is pretty much one-sided, I think. Speaking for myself, I do not take issue with men who wear suits and ties to church. And I do not take issue because I equate neither “casual” attire nor “Sunday best” with “true enlightened spirituality.”

[John E.]

In the context of this discussion (with fundamentalists), the division is pretty much one-sided, I think. Speaking for myself, I do not take issue with men who wear suits and ties to church. And I do not take issue because I equate neither “casual” attire nor “Sunday best” with “true enlightened spirituality.”

Regarding Lee’s comment, we have to define reverence, I think, in light of what James wrote about the man in vile raiment, and in light of the reality that a huge portion of the early church consisted of slaves who really didn’t have much opportunity to dress well. I’m not even quite sure that Scripture supports the notion that those clothes ought necessarily be super-clean—James does after all refer to “shabby” clothes or “vile raiment”, after all.

A given style of clothing? Well, those same slaves were coming from all the nations surrounding Rome, really, and inasmuch as they would be allowed to make some of their own clothing (in Rome, slaves did all the trades, which would include tailoring and couture), I’d guess you’d see a lot of styles, especially in port cities like Corinth.

In light of that, all I can say for today is that we ought to cover the critical areas (this will be different in Iowa from how it looks in Papua New Guinea or Riyadh) and avoid clearly offensive messages on our attire; really, things that we ought to do everyday, not just at church, no? Just can’t see how we can square “you ought to be wearing this in church” with the example of the New Testament.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Larry Nelson]

…..I say (and if necessary define and/or clarify the meaning of) “church clothes” (in their native language, of course) to a contemporary resident of Fiji? Or Zambia? Or Costa Rica? Or Haiti? Or Nigeria? Or Finland? Or Nepal? Or Ecuador? Or _____________?

Or what if the question was asked of residents of various historical times (let alone places)? Would I get the same response in 2018 as in 1818, or 1618, or 1218, or 818, or in 68 AD?

Will their responses “likely conjure up a [similar] fairly narrow fashion statement”?

Yes, in regards to their practice of corporate worship within their culture, their idea of appropriate attire will very likely be relatively narrow.

Will it look like American fashion? Likely not, but that makes it no less a “fairly narrow fashion statement.”

Lee