Wearing suits to church has been a common American tradition for decades.

[TylerR]

Jesus wore a suit and He had short hair.

Friends of mine working for HCJB always laughed that they weren’t allowed to grow beards while they were at Moody, and all over they’ve got the pictures of D.L. with a magnificent growth on his face.

Regarding shorter hair, I do believe the reliefs depicting Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem in Rome show the captives with relatively short hair, but that would have been, as Jim notes, within the parameters of Leviticus 19:27. Short hair there could also be a sign of mourning, of course. We certainly can, as Wally notes, mis-apply James 2 to suggest that any nice clothing is amiss—this is, really, one of my wife’s frustrations as she tries to encourage women to provide good quality garments for their families. “But we can get it cheaper at Wal-Mart or Goodwill”. Well, if you luck out at Goodwill, yes, but good luck getting first quality cotton or wool shirts there, and if you should need a decent suit, you’re not going to find it, in general, at Wal-Mart or Target. Sometimes it seems like a “new fundamental” that we’re thinking “cheaper is better”—we might preserve the “form” by getting a polyester suit from Penney’s or something, but we’re all too often not going to get anything of near the quality that the newsie shown on Shorpy’s.

There is a happy medium somewhere between great worry about one’s attire and being immodest or even lewd, I think. And it’s not found with dress codes.

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/Cambridge-Camel-Hair-Patch-Pocket-Jacket/…

Is the God Who originally created man to be in his birthday suit (and Who pre-fall declared that such was “good” and Who moreover was then in perfect communion with His creation in such a state) the same God Who is today displeased (according to some) if man worships Him in other than a business suit?

[Larry Nelson]

Is the God Who originally created man to be in his birthday suit (and Who pre-fall declared that such was “good” and Who moreover was then in perfect communion with His creation in such a state) the same God Who is today displeased (according to some) if man worships Him in other than a business suit?

….about the dress code to expect at Larry’s church! :^)

[Larry Nelson]

Is the God Who originally created man to be in his birthday suit (and Who pre-fall declared that such was “good” and Who moreover was then in perfect communion with His creation in such a state) the same God Who is today displeased (according to some) if man worships Him in other than a business suit?

Again, there’s a clear distinction in Scripture between the worship of God’s people gathered in community and as a body vs. the life of worship we live as individuals. The pre-Fall state doesn’t make Leviticus disappear… and we find there that it is at least possible that God could care a whole lot about what worshipers wear—and that what they wear can have a great deal of meaning (even meaning they do not intend or understand).

I’m not arguing that the business suit is the correct garb for worship. But I am arguing that there are weighty principles here that have to be factored in to how we evaluate our options.

Contemplate 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 in contemplating how we ought to dress when worshipping God…..if the posture of prayer is often the posture of prostrating oneself, we might infer that the proper attire for worship is whatever we might be wearing when God calls us to pray. Or, perhaps better, the proper attire for worship is whatever we ought to be wearing at that time; that it would be inseparable from the questions of “what ought to be covered”, “what is suitable for this occasion”, etc..

And looking up at an earlier comment of Wally’s, one thought that I have regarding the pastor who wears that deep v t shirt to show a muscular chest, tats, chest hair, and the like is that he’s saying about the same thing as the 40-something guy who suddenly trades in his station wagon or minivan for a Camaro. Watch out, the midlife crisis is coming, and it will have some fallout.

And of course, I’m not just saying that because I’m not that muscular…… :^)

There’s a clear distinction in Scripture between the worship of God’s people gathered in community and as a body vs. the life of worship we live as individuals.

Aaron, I like this point you are reiterating in this conversation. Perhaps you could write a little something that explores this sometime.

Thanks, Thomas. Not a bad idea. It’s one of those “things you thought everybody knew already, but now it seems maybe not” :-)

A good question to ponder might be, why does God command His people to gather and worship at all… since we can do it in the canoe on the lake? (or in the shower in the morning for that matter!)

The answer to that has to inform how we view attire (as well as music, architecture of the worship space, etc. — none of this is trivial, because nothing associated with the worship God can possibly be trivial!)

In outline, we have passages that attribute a worship purpose to all we do (1 Cor. 10:31, Rom. 12.1 “latreuo” etc.), but these are layered onto an OT context in which a nation—a gathered people—is set apart to be a worshiping entity (Exodus 19:6 ). 1 Pet. 2:5 doesn’t indicate that the NT gathered people replaces the old, but it does strongly identify us with the old.

But the really fascinating thing to me about the OT gathered worship is the detailed specifications, every part of which is packed with meaning, right down to the tabernacle’s pillars and sockets. (I’m not at all in favor of wild speculation as to what all of it means, but it’s clear that God specified the form because the form said something. He could have easily just said, “make a big tent with two rooms and put some really special stuff in the innermost room, that will symbolize My Presence… do it as seems fit to you.”)

[Aaron Blumer]

Nothing associated with the worship God can possibly be trivial!)

Amen.

Aaron Blumer wrote: (I’m not at all in favor of wild speculation as to what all of it means, but it’s clear that God specified the form because the form said something. He could have easily just said, “make a big tent with two rooms and put some really special stuff in the innermost room, that will symbolize My Presence… do it as seems fit to you.”) (Emphasis mine)

In terms of Isrealite worship, God did specify the design and use of worship elements to great detail. I do believe that He was very concerned that the form and function of worship would be distinct from that of other gods. But here’s the rub. God specified those details.

Contrast that to NT worship, and it is primarily men who have specified the details, and also the significance of them. There are obviously no NT guidelines for church architecture, dress, Lord’s Supper presentation, pulpit design, lighting, etc. I would argue that men have chosen them and also have decided on the significance of those choices. Therefore Christians have done what seems fit to them. Do we have agreement on this point, or does it require further rebuttal?

If we are in agreement, the issue becomes, do certain worship elements become favored in God’s eyes, and should thus be sanctified in men’s practice if they have been selected with the proper reverence? That is, do Christians have the freedom to decide what is reverent, and does God accept this judgment (albeit presumably Holy Spirit led)?

My experiences have made me aware that many people are not getting the message of James 2. Consider:

—Being told that a church where the majority of dress is business casual is inherently not a “good” church because they don’t respect God.

—A man who had lost most of what he owned in a hurricane a few days before, comes to church in warm-up pants and a tee shirt (it was all he had) and is greeted by the pastor with a caustic “Why are you wearing THAT!”

—A vacationing couple visits a church dressed casually (all the other men had ties, etc.) and the preacher departs from his text for a 10 minute rabbit trail on “dressing up for church”.

—And then there are those stories of missionaries who go to other cultures and introduce the natives to suits and ties.

…is that Exodus 28 specifies that the priestly garments are to be predominantly of linen. Now there is a form there, but there is also a function—linen is cooler than wool (it wicks sweat better), is smoother to the touch than most wools, and also washes better—definitely a plus when you’re doing things like butchering animals and sprinkling blood all over. And it’s not just linen, but generally “fine twined linen”—in other words, it’s combed before it’s spun and will thus be more resilient and breathable than an ordinary linen thread. Think the difference between woolens and worsteds, if you know that—it’s more or less the difference between your granddad’s tweed jacket (or yours) and the super-smooth worsteds you’ll find at a good men’s clothing store.

Now it’s not stated in as many words, but we can infer that God showed kindness to the Cohens in His choice of sacramental garments in a climate that can get VERY hot. So per Ron’s comment, any guidance in modesty and what is appropriate for worship really ought to take climate and purpose into account.

And let’s be blunt here; hurricanes come mostly to very warm climates, and not everybody can afford a linen coat at $500+. So the pastor who insists on suits is insisting on wool or polyester, both of which will generally be lined in polyester at the price point the congregation can afford. In some climates, insisting on a suit is just plain cruel in its application.

A former pastor of mine who also had missionary experience outside the US gave a practical standard and good rule of thumb, I think, when it comes to what to wear in church, especially for people serving in visible positions—look at what people locally wear who work at the local banks (tellers, not the executives). It shows some measure of what the locals find to be respectful and appropriate.
FWIW, in doing a funeral recently, I couldn’t help but notice that the funeral home personnel wore suits or similar attire for the women who worked for the FH. To even go “business casual,” at least without input from the grieving family, would be communicating an unwanted message, would it not?
As far as suits in our culture, they may not be appropriate everywhere, but there is still context for them. You see professional athletes wearing them, sometimes on the bench when they are injured and not playing. You see media figures wearing them giving the news, weather, or sports… and if there would be a context to loosen up, wouldn’t it be sports?
The Scriptures make no requirement for NT believers attire in the assembly, and we need to make sure that the NT teaching that specifically does address the issue—James 2—is not one we disregard. At the same time, when we do make our own decisions in this area, we should be mindful of what our clothing communicates to others. What we wear does send a message, and deserves consideration.

I was just thinking of Tom Sawyer and his Sunday clothes, and how there was a time when a man - or woman - had one Sunday dress or Sunday suit that they wore every week or for special occasions. Today that practice would be considered weird, and probably tacky.

For those of you who need some fashion terms for this discussion, try http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/how-to/growth-strategies/2016/09/suit-jacket-blazer-sports-jacket-whats-difference.html