On proper attire for church

My turn to post on top of James Spurgeon.
by Phil Johnson

Dan's post yesterday made an important point to which I add a hearty and solemn amen. The comment-thread that ensued prompted a secondary discussion about whether our attire for church ought to be formal or informal. I want to bring that issue up out of the meta.

Here's how it came about:

Somewhere under Dan's post, Sharon added a comment bewailing the epidemic of informality that has changed the look and feel of church services everywhere since the days of "Leave it to Beaver." Hers is not a popular point of view these days, except among schoolmarm types. After all, everyone knows that legalism is a greater threat than irreverence, right?

Well, maybe not.

First of all, thanks to Jerry Wragg for saving me some time (once again). I haven't time to say everything I would like about the issue. So see Jerry's lengthy comment in this thread for a good summary of my view.

But I wanted to add this:

Regarding formality

There's important truth on both sides of this question. Scripture gives no dress code for when the congregation assembles—except that we're expressly forbidden to favor people with fine attire (James 2:2-4). Selah.

It's also possible to be both formal and immodest.

Moreover, I've been in very formal environments where the formality seemed designed mainly as an opportunity to parade one's finery. To whatever degree that's someone's motive for dressing up, it's a sinful motive.

So I wouldn't argue that church must be formal. I've ministered too often in undeveloped countries and non-western cultures to suggest that neckties are a biblical necessity. (Ask Jay Adams if you don't believe me about that.)

Oddly enough, however, it seems to me that in less affluent cultures, people are usually more inclined to see the church service as an occasion to wear one's best clothing. For what it's worth.

Regarding informality

On the other hand, even those who claim to eschew every kind of dress code would surely deem some things too informal or otherwise inappropriate for church attire. And "modesty" is not the only issue here. If Sharon showed up at Chris Freeland's church in her band uniform, if Frank Turk arrived in a zoot suit, if I came in my lederhosen, or if James White showed up in his kilt (even with his bicycle tights underneath for modesty), I bet Chris would raise an eyebrow (or at least swallow hard).

Except for certain Anglicans, I'm betting most of us would agree that clown suits are generally inappropriate attire for church.

So even if we don't have a legalistic dress code, practically all of us would recognize that some kinds of attire are more appropriate than others for church.

But:

If there's an imbalance today on one side or the other, it seems to me that it's largely in the direction of cheapening, informalizing, and trivializing everything that's sacred.

Which is to say that while wouldn't necessarily suggest that it's a sin to dress like this, I'd wonder about a Christian who dressed that way for church.

In other words...

There's an important and valid principle in what Sharon is saying, and those inclined to blow it off ought to pause and listen first:

To a certain extent, our attire in church reflects our attitude toward the significance of corporate worship and the holiness of the One whom we worship, and we ought to give some thought to that fact when we decide what to wear. The tendency toward making Hawaiian shirts, Bermuda shorts, sandals, bare midriffs, and gold chains the standard attire for corporate worship is related to the very same mentality that is cheapening and trivializing every other aspect of our worship.

---