“this is more serious than any normal activity.”

He’s got it right and wrong all at the same time!  Worship is serious.  One way to communicate that is with a coat and tie—but there are a multitude of other ways to make it serious.

Worship is not intended to be separate from the “normal activity” of God’s people—it is not part of some separate universe.  If wearing a coat and tie reinforces it as separate from “normal” then cut off the ties and give the coats to Goodwill.

He’s right you know. Let’s put this thing in reverse. Trade the jeans and hawaiin shirt for dress slacks and a polo. Trade the dress slacks and polo for dress slacks, a buttoned shirt and tie. Trade the slacks, shirt, and tie for a suit and tie, Trade the suit and tie for a three piece suit. Trade the three pice suit for black shoes, pants, shirt, and a collar. Let’s trade these for an ecclesiastical robe. Then trade these for the common street clothing of the original disciples. If going back is showing respect than let’s go all the way back...back to when the clothes that mattered were things like humility, love, grace, and mercy.

Um...before you guys get too upset you may want to check today’s date.

Hey Todd,

I couldn’t help but notice that you are not wearing a tie in your picture on your blog.  Do you have no respect for the fine art of blogging or for your fellow bloggers for that matter?

I wanna see a tie before the end of the day or I will have to seriously consider dropping you from my blog roll!

The stance that one should dress nicer for church than during “normal activity” is what I was taught growing up.  This I was taught by hypocrites who dressed and acted righteous on Sunday, but were the worst sinners during the week, some of who were adulterers and worse.

Is it OK to wear Ozzie Osborne and Black Sabbath t-shirts all week as long as I dress respectfully in a suit and tie on Sunday?  Is it OK for young girls to dress like hookers all week as long as they dress respectfully on Sunday? 

(For those Ozzie fans out there might be offended by my using him as a bad example, please substitute Boy George and Culture Club.)

The emphasis here is all wrong!  Why should you teach that you should dress and act better on Sunday, in order to show proper respect, than you do the rest of the week?  I think we should be teaching that you should show proper respect all week long, that how you dress and act on Sunday is how you should dress and act seven days a week.  We shouldn’t be trying to show proper respect for the church, the Gospel, and the Lord only on Sunday.

I will start with this . . . . the only incident regarding attire that I have experienced personally in the last six years occurred when a brother, who has at times appeared on our church’s platform pushing our collective limit of casualness, accosted me about my preference for jackets and ties.  He initiated the conversation with me cold.  I was delighted, because it gave me the opportunity to point out to him that one of us has a hangup about attire, since he cared enough to mention it, and one of us does not.

‘Tis ridiculous to make it an overly significant issue.  ‘Tis equally ridiculous to assume that wearing pajamas in public somehow makes one more “relevant.” I am about to tire of that word.  I am a teacher of the Word of God (as are many of you).  If I handle scripture correctly (a gravely serious responsibility), I am AUTOMATICALLY relevant, or the Holy Spirit is impotent.  The purpose of ones attire is to avoid or minimize distraction.  Since one cannot appease all cultural preferences in a culture as non-homogenous as ours, there is no single “correct” uniform.

[In some cultures, Christians still attire themselves distinctly.  In those cultures, not wearing the uniform is a distraction.]

As for this paper-tiger reasoning that “Jesus wore regular clothes” I also suggest that Jesus was penniless, homeless, and celibate.  In other words, we need to be very careful trotting out all first century practices as though they are meant to be straight-piped into our setting.  It is one thing, and quite healthy, to remember that the 2,000 year history of the church is not authoritative.  It is another thing, however, and ridiculous, to deem the 2,000 year history of the church to be meaningless.  We are not 1st century itinerant Messiahs or Apostles.  We are 21st Century church pros, and, in my humble view, the trappings of professionalism (to some degree) legitimately and inevitably come with the territory.

I do not hear us complaining about our 21st century technologies, our quite comfortable 21st century offices and homes, or our 21st century earning power.  Be very careful with a line of argument that says, “I do not want to be perceived as a professional, I just want to be one of the guys (or girls).” Many of you don’t believe that for a minute.  Your compensation packages, and the authority that you wield in your respective areas of responsibility, indicate that you desire to be perceived as a well-qualified professional. 

Now, that is not to say that I think all/any of you should dress more/less formally when you are fulfilling your public role.  Blessedly and increasingly, we have freedom to reflect the cultural variety of the congregations among whom we minister, and that is healthy. 

My ONLY beef is with those who hold that formal attire is harmful, or informal attire is somehow necessary, in order to “connect” or be “relevant” to this culture.  Hogwash.

this one is out of my league, i cant tell if russell is agreeing or complaining..

I thought Russel’s post was quite insightful. I think I can boil it down to one point (something I can’t do with my own posts!):

1. Be relevant. This means that you must be relevant where you are. This is the reason many churches have lost their impact and are declining.

This has been some good discussion on what I initially thought was a ridiculous discussion.

The tie was originally something to wipe your mouth and catch food drippings so you didn’t ruin your shirt, and now it’s become something you try NOT to spill food on.

So, if I go to church the way I am the rest of the week am I worshipping culture more or less than someone who insists I dress in a way that was only invented in the past century or so in my western culture.

I do respect the office of preaching and teaching, so much so that I think regular guys should be doing it authentically and with passion and excellence…

Interesting.  John MacArthur is not telling others what to wear.  He is expressing his personal practice of wearing a tie.  This is his choice and practice.  He does point out the change in cultural dress.  But with that change has also come other issues as well.  Putting a tie on does not change a sinner into a saint.  Only putting on Christ can do that.  Further, Jesus did wear a rabbi’s robe which was distinctive, costly, and had the tassles (remember the woman who wanted to touch the hem, she was reaching for the tassles in the belief God would bless her).  The robe was worth enough that the soldiers gambled for it.  [I’m not pushing robes in the pulpit, just clarifying some of the content.] The audience and climate often dictates what I wear.

Dan,

Can you give any evidence for your assertion that Jesus wore a special robe or that the woman was reaching for the tassels?

Jesus was addressed as “rabbi” by some, but was certainly not recognized as such by the religious leaders (even if they used the term).

Not saying you are wrong, I just don’t see anything in Scripture to support your proposition.

Brian L.

Lee, I don’t think you and I disagree at all.  Do you accept my assertion that “the purpose of ones attire is to avoid or minimize distraction?”

If you do, then would we further would agree that you can dress to not distract (depending on setting) in either a suit, a tux, a polo and cargo pants, or shorts and a t-shirt (I have let worship in all of the above).

That’s the main point that I was seeking to make.  The issue is not “give your best to Jesus,” in my view.  But I also take issue with “you must be casually attired in order for Jesus to be relevant.”

What you have to be is non-distracting, UNLESS your attire is meant to illustrate some point which you will otherwise be explaining from the word. (I once did a “thing” in the garb of the Levitical High Priest . . .)

Does that make sense?