The Problem with Church: Lack of Toothpaste
That’s it folks! Look no further for the reason why we all in decline. According to this slice post, from this ABC news story, the problem is hygiene! Now why didn’t I think of that?! All these kids coming into our churches, wearing the latest fashions of tattered jeans and bed head - they just need a good shower! Maybe if we had Colgate come and do a 45 minute presentation in all of our churches, we would be rid of the slobbery. Better yet, we can have the ushers hand out disposable toothbrushes at the door. And maybe we can get people back into those polyester three-piece suits again! Remember… the Lord looks at the hygiene, the clothing style and how well you are able to color coordinate your clothing.
**this post contains many facetious statements. While I do believe that our society is becoming more brash, rude and crude, I have no clue how that corresponds to hygiene, clothing choice and how those two affect the current state of the church.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Shhh..no one tell Ingrid about this.
Scandalous, I tell ya…
June 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Phil, are you saying the blind don’t have a fashion sense?
June 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I don’t know where I stand on this argument. I haven’t worn a tie to church in years, but at the same time I think there is a line. But before anyone jumps on me I know it’s a totally subjective line. I certainly would not turn anyone away for what they wore although I do think a word from a pastor’s wife or other mature woman in the chuch might be appropriate to those women who dress provactively and unappropriately. I know, I know - subjective, subjective. But the Bible does speak of it.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Well certainly the “poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” were not people who were known for their personal hygiene back in those days. They were basically beggars who lived on the streets.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Don’t forget James either, it doesn’t just stop at social status and clothes IMO
“it’s about hygiene, a sense of propriety and a respect for others.”
What’s funny is these are all subjective things. When people show up to my house in a suit and tie, or a function I’m running, it makes me feel a little bit disrespected (why does this person feel the need to put on a show?), but I dismiss that because it’s subjective.
I don’t understand people that don’t celebrate people attending church no matter what state they are in really. Anytime someone chooses to come to church instead of sleeping in, I consider that a significant victory in itself and I need not give them any reason to ditch by judging how they dress or carry themselves.
I guess if I were to have a standard, I’d want to see people dressed how they normally dress when they are public. If someone wears their PJ’s to everywhere but work, I wouldn’t sweat them for it at church. But if it seems like they save their absolute worst for church, and they had been attending for a long time and were a member of the church, I might ask them their reasoning behind it.
But these sorts of niche social rules are of course easier to follow then the calls of God, so it makes sense why the ODM’s choose to make a big deal out of it, it helps protect them from the bigger things that are going on…
June 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
One time, when my wife and I were still dating, I was preaching at the young adult gathering we called our church home at the time. My normal attire for attending the service was shorts and a t-shirt. So my preaching attire was the same. Just before I got up to preach, I kicked off my flip-flops to be more comfortable. Michelle’s grandparents had come that night to hear me preach. They were a little out of their element already. But when her grandmother saw me barefoot up front, she leaned over to Michelle and whispered, “Doesn’t he have any shoes? I’ll buy him shoes.”
Gotta smile.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I just read the article that SOL linked to, just the grumblings of a nostalgic who doesn’t get things their way. They disrespect others under the guise of trying to get respect for themselves.
Ettiquete is the bastion of the grumpy and xenophobic who prefer a fake arbitrary set of things.
I remember once someone told me the way I dress will bar me from oppurtunities, and my reply was that all it bars me from is elitists who I’d rather not give my time.
It’s kind of sad when you read these ramblings of someone so caught up on this nonsense (although at the end the problems with people being unkind do transcend the ettiquette game)
June 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Another time, I preached at the Christmas Eve service. It was mild that evening, so I wore flip-flops and jeans.
The elders heard about that from a few regulars.
But I’m guessing no visitors complained.
I don’t judge anyone for dressing up to preach. And if I was asked to preach at a church where that was the expected attire for the pulpit, I would honor that and not make waves.
But when the choice is mine, I dress the way I normally dress, the way normal people dress. In our society, a suit and tie is a symbol of status and power. The preacher is a foot-washing servant.
Just my 2 cents.
Shalom
June 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Exactly. Suits and ties are worn by presidents, and CEOs, not by servants. Its also interesting that Ingrid is rallying behind a worldly, secular news media. Something she pointed out.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“In our society, a suit and tie is a symbol of status and power. The preacher is a foot-washing servant.”
Nathanael - that is a great point. Thank you.
As a pastor myself I have wrestled with this issue as well. There was a time I wore a suit and then felt weird about it so stopped. I recall as a kid growing up and thinking the pastor had it all together (and now, as a pastor, I can only laugh at that!). Reflecting back on that, I think it hindered lay people taking an active role in faith and ministry. Why should they when the “professional” is better equipped? I mean look at him or her - they dress so much better than me!
BTW, I checked out your blog - we have the same banner, only from a different angle! lol.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 11:02 am
You forgot lawyers…
Basically, anyone who lies for living.
I knew there was a reason so many pastors wore them…
June 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Chad,
I checked out your site the other day and noticed the same thing.
My angle is better though.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Um, Nathan, it would have been nice if you had asked before posting a picture of my dad.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hate to break it to you guys, but it’s also the same banner as Ingrid’s “nice” blog.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Evan,
TOO FUNNY!
Phil,
Chad’s is, not mine.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Nathanael,
I notice in your picture you do not wear glasses. I can send you mine if you’d like.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
LOL Phil!
Like baptism, Christmas trees and easter eggs, I am redeeming what was once pagan.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
http://www.borrowedbreath.com/2007/11/01/bespectacled/
June 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I just snorted my ham and cheese wrap.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Yikes all English are out if were talking teeth
June 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Guys,
Read the article. I didn’t say it alone, ABC News raised the issue. The article mentioned basic hygiene going lacking today. Who said anything about poor, needy people without toothpaste not being welcomed in God’s house? (So many in America are unable to afford it, after all.) Are you desperate to have something to criticize as you erect an image of me so you can shoot it down? “Ingrid is uncompassionate, hard hearted and a snob who thinks people should wear suits to church.” I don’t see any requirement to wear a suit in church in Scripture, but if you roll out of bed and think that God’s house should be treated like your bedroom and you’re too stinking lazy to dress with respect when you have every ability to do so, you’ve got a problem. You people don’t even read what you critique. You have an issue with this, take it up with the ABC piece which specifically mentioned church. Truthfully, I think this one cut a little too close to home for some of you.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I think the reason this one cut so close to home for me is because I’ve seen people snubbed and talked about because they wear their normal clothes or dress down clothes to church.
They’re looked down on because of how the dress. Can they afford to dress “better”? Sure, but they are coming to the House of God the same way they dress to live their lives during the week, evne though some people see that as disrespectful, these people don’t.
They see it as an important part of not segmenting their church life and their everyday life.
It cut close to home because I’ve seen too many people pushed aside and given a hard time because people put the principles of ettiqute over people themselves.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Ingrid,
I’ve never understood how a building that does not contain an altar or a tabernacle can be labeled “God’s House”.
I also would not be so quick to judge another man’s bedroom. In addition to a church where a little red candle burns; my bedroom (when me wife is present) is the most Sacred place in this world to me.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Believe me, it’s very clear that, after the weight of your own words over time is considered (i.e your blogs various incarnations, radio shows and articles), there’s absolutely no need to erect any image and it’s certainly not being attempted by anyone here.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“but if you roll out of bed and think that God’s house should be treated like your bedroom and you’re too stinking lazy to dress with respect when you have every ability to do so, you’ve got a problem.”
Ingrid, if you were running for president I would applaud your elitism (seee Jon Stewart) but we are Christians, followers of the one who was characterized as being a wine-bibber and a man who had no place to lay his own head. In other words, everyone you just described.
So it is OK to dress down to church if you do not have the financial means to do so? So which committee do you suggest ask each church attendee what their financial status is and then show them the sliding scale with pictures of which attire they should wear?
Just because ABC says it doesn’t mean you have to endorse it.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I didn’t know God still lived in a house. It must have a HUGE garage…
June 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Ingrid,
I’m sure your pastor (i.e. your spiritual authority over you) agrees with much of what you believe.
But I wonder if you would see him as compromised if he criticized your tone, methods, etc.?
I wonder what you would do if he said that you have overstepped your role as a woman, even if he believed the substance of your arguments were sound?
I just wonder what it would be like for you to actually be held accountable through the structures that actually have some responsibility to shepherd you, guide you, and, yes, rule you?
Until that day…I would get used to this blog.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
enjoy that today.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
what does this mean?
” I wonder what you would do if he said that you have overstepped your role as a woman”
June 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Yeah, Nathan, way to completely misrepresent the point of the Slice entry in your OP.
Tell me, does such misrepresentation come naturally, or do you have to work at it?
youbecomewhatyouhate
June 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
pot. kettle. you do the math…
June 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
–pot. kettle. you do the math…–
2+2=4
Or is that too Modern for you?
June 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
NC,
I am used to it, and far worse after all these years of work. You men taking pot shots don’t come close to getting hard porn in the morning mail and death threats that tell me exactly where I will die with a 9mm up my nose. I just have to shake my head sometimes at how threatened you all seem to be by some woman sharing her views. But carry on, guys. Carry on.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Last time I checked, mathematics pre-dated modernism by a thousand years or so, with Babylonians utilizing the concept of ‘zero’ during the Roman Hellenistic period…
June 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Not sure where any ‘pot shots’ here are…
Unless pointing out a Christian actively teaching and espousing a semi-gnostic emphasis on physical externals and creating idols out of buildings is a “pot shot”…
June 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
You want to see real dress up churches, go to a health and wealth congregation. How about a post of the millions of people who look and smell great as they go to church and are filled with dead men’s bones? I believe Right Guard hacked into SOL.
A slow news day…
June 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m sitting in my office right now studying for Sunday’s sermon. I’m wearing a Jeff Gordon t-shirt, a pare of shorts, and flip-flops. But my building is so old we have no air conditioning and it is like 10 million degrees here by the lake. I remember my first church in Brandywine, WVa. I went out calling on the other preachers in town my first day wearing a suit and tie. They laughed at me because people in that part of the world wear overalls.
Besides, this is old news. The new real threat to the Sovereignty of God is some kids who remade “Footloose”.
It seems to me that the point of that movie had something to do with young people rebelling against old people who thought dancing was somehow anti-Christian. David’s wife did too and we see whose side the Lord was on in that scene.
I am sorry that the author of Slice has had to deal with so many threats in her life. She is a true martyr for something. What saddens me more is that ’some woman’ can dish out such anger and sarcasm and contempt for everything beautiful under the sun but cannot reel it in when it is dealt back to her in spades.
Dear God, Please let the author of Slice of Laodicea learn about grace today so that she will stop being so angry and contemptuous about everything that doesn’t fit her paradigm of spirituality. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Nathan Clair,
“I just wonder what it would be like for you to actually be held accountable through the structures that actually have some responsibility to shepherd you, guide you, and, yes, rule you?”
A bit judgmental perhaps. How do you know Ingrid isn’t held accountable through said structures? Answer: You don’t.
So, I guess you’d best get used to blogs like Slice as God continues to be culturally relevant through the medium of the Internet.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
That’s really mean, and should not happen. I’m truly sorry if you have to deal with death threats.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Break the Terror,
I thank you so much for your kind comment. I mean that.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Jose:
My questions about “being a woman” come from the obvious disparity between professed beliefs about gender roles and the actual way people comport themselves.
I am an egalitarian, but it would be nice to see these “true believers of the Word” at least try to live up to their own standards.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jazz:
Exactly.
Thank you for simply pointing to what I am demonstrating too. I’m glad we agree.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ingrid:
Your porn and death threat experience is unacceptable.
That sucks.
I’m sorry for that.
Truly.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Jerry Hillyer,
It is exactly because I know about God’s grace first hand that I grieve when Christians who think it’s cool to let their kids be “footloose”. I was once”footloose” and I nearly destroyed my life. Or let me put it another way, I was “footloose” and I did destroy my life, but God rebuilt it. This stuff is not harmless. The woman in the original video, dancing sexually in front of the man who is portraying a boyfriend, is a picture of the carnal mind without fear of God, impure, sensual and in rebellion against everything holy. Had I respected God’s Word, I would not have found myself in the footloose rubble at a very young age. Except I wasn’t footloose in the end, I was in bondage and not free at all. I write these posts on Slice and feel so strongly about it because I know how believing the enemy’s lies can take you down. Gospel singer Michael English’s recent book shares the same story. He found himself in the rubble of his life because he thought he could be “footloose” and ignore what God had commanded in His Word. His story resonated with me because God’s grace is real, but God is not mocked by those who want to exploit it. The Gospel IS the message of God’s grace and that is why it is so important that it be preached in purity. That motivates me in my work, in case anybody wonders what does.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Ingrid (pt. 2)
The height of irony though that you’ve built your whole ministry around “pot shots” and then you can’t handle criticism.
To be clear, I’m not remotely threatened by a woman sharing her views.
Just would like to hear how your ministry comports with your professed views on women’s roles. Seems to be a gaping disparity (i.e. hypocrisy.)
Can you clear that up for us?
Seriously.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Ken Silva:
So nice to see you’re still lurking here.
Actually, it’s clear that we do know it, Ken.
There would be a world of difference in how she handles herself on the internet.
Unless, of course, you’re her “accountability”, which explains a lot.
My question still stands:
If Ingrid’s church pastor agreed with her in substance, but critiqued her because of her gender and/or the manner in which she goes about her ministry would she still support him and submit to him OR claim he’s compromised?
Ingrid?
June 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Webster’s Dictionary describes “pot shots” as this -
“Truthfully, I think this one cut a little too close to home for some of you.”
June 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’m not a pastor, not even a Bible teacher. I try very hard to have pastors on Crosstalk share any time we talk about serious doctrinal issues, like today’s program where I featured two and merely questioned them. I do not believe, however, that sharing biblical truth as a female is taking authority over men, nor do I believe that spotting false teaching is only allowed by pastors and teachers in our churches. We are all required to be “ready with an answer for the hope within us” and I try to do that on my radio program. I simply share what I believe in the capacity as broadcaster and writer. Nobody has to listen to me if they are convicted not to. Just as the Lord first revealed himself after his resurrection to a female and she ran with the news, I don’t think the Lord teaches in His Word that women may not run today to share His Word in whatever capacity they are given, with the exception of the office pastor and church headship. That job is clearly given to men and the picture of headship there is so important. I operate under male headship under our Board of Directors, our Executive Director, then my pastor and husband. At any point if they believed I was biblically out of line, they would tell me to stop and I would be obligated to submit to that. I am not going to get to a huge debate here as I will not spend time with many here who are malicious and not sincere in their comments. But your question is a good one so I’m glad you asked. I’m also not trying to monopolize the comment section as this is not my blog, so with that I will sign off.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
” I do not believe, however, that sharing biblical truth as a female is taking authority over men, nor do I believe that spotting false teaching is only allowed by pastors and teachers in our churches.”
That is not the issue. It is the open rebuke of ordained elders (including creative invectives and demeaning remarks), that is taking authority over men.
The rest like taking pot shots at unbelievers is a Christian issue, not a gender one.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Ingrid,
Thank you for your answer.
It helps for you to explain how you see it works for you.
To be honest, I don’t see much “hope” in the “answers” you tend to give. And I think Rick’s statement about invectives, etc. demonstrates that it appears that more than just “answers for the hope” is going on.
It is something to think about. It would put a sharper contrast between your own actions and what you consider pot-shots.
But, in the end, I am clearer now how your professed ministry beliefs and actions work together for you.
See, everyone.
I can be forceful, but I’m not an ogre.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“To be honest, I don’t see much ‘hope’ in the ‘answers’ you tend to give. ”
Nor do we with yours. Face it, you think you’re right and we think we’re right.
This is meant sincerely, I hope you can see that. You are as committed to how you see the Christian faith as we are to how we see the Christian faith.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Ingrid,
Let me first say that it is wrong how these people have treated you while claiming to follow Christ. THEY are the people that should be considered a threat to the faith. None of the staff writers here would endorse that behavior in any way, shape or form.
I don’t see how dress has anything to do with spirituality. I actually think it is great if people make no distinction between their faith in their bedroom and their faith in the church building. Sunday mornings should just be a corporate expression of what’s going on during the week… it should not be any more important or special.
Did you know that the #2 reason why pagans don’t go to church is because they don’t have the right clothes? SHAME on us for making a culture where people see that we value appearance over people. Just some thoughts.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
nc - you are not an ogre, but you are a piece of crap!
I have told that to all my friends, I’ll never recover. It’s the only swear word I say (when I share your words) and it feels a little naughty!
June 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Yes, Ken, but the key difference is that we would include you within the bounds of Christendom, whereas you don’t have the grace to do the same for most of your ‘enemies’…
June 6th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Perhaps the best response, Ingrid, to your article would be the words from God directly to Samuel:
I would also note that no building is “God’s house” - the church (the people) is God’s temple, not a building made with human hands. I could care less whether someone is wearing pajamas or a 3-piece suit than whether or not their heart is worshipping God when meeting with the corporate body of the church…
June 6th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Chris,
“Yes, Ken, but the key difference is that we would include you within the bounds of Christendom, whereas you don’t have the grace to do the same for most of your ‘enemies’…”
I guess we just disagree.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
QFT.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
How very pomo of you, Ken…
June 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am
QFT?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:22 am
QFT = quoted for truth.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ingrid,
What is the difference in going to “God’s house” and the grocery store, or the movies, or anywhere… aren’t we worshiping God and being with him everywhere?
Personally I love nothing more then to roll out of bed and throw on jeans and flip flops and worship with other believers.
You honestly don’t see this as a generational/preference issue and not a biblical issue?
June 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Actually, Mandy, you bring up a good point. Many generations ago some preacher would have decried the careless practice of women and men sitting together in church.
What kind of cultural suurender was that!!
June 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
A prurient one! OH GNOS!
June 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
No, Mandy,
I don’t see it that way when it comes to corporate worship in the visible church. I just returned from a wedding and there wasn’t a person there who looked like they were at the beach. There was a big diversity in styles and degrees of formality, but all were clearly somewhere special, honoring the bride and groom on their special day by the care they put into their preparation. I think that I see corporate worship on the Lord’s Day maybe differently then many here and that accounts for the disagreement. I believe that Scripture teaches that worship here on earth participates with the heavenly worship already going on in heaven. That when we join in the Gloria Patri on Sundayat our church that we are joining in with the saints already before God’s throne in the church triumphant. We as the church militant still here on earth join in with them and praise the slain Lamb of God who reigns forever. It isn’t about looking sharp to impress sister whatsit in the next seat. When my husband and I dress for church and when my children have dressed for church it is with a sense of reverence and awe, an attitude towards God’s holiness and separateness from the mundane things of this life that motivates us. He is worth the effort. It isn’t that he is impressed with our great sense of style or buttoned down conservatism or whatever. It’s that here in the West we have choices, most of us, and it’s my belief that how we dress makes a statement about how we view what we are doing. If I showed up in your wedding dressed in flipflops and jeans I would be saying, “you are simply not worth the effort, Mandy.” If your best for church is a pair of jeans and that is all you have, praise God. But all too often this is nothing more than an excuse for the carelessness in how God is actually treated and says much of how we view God. He is holy. He is loving. He is a consuming Fire. He is righteous and He is worthy of my very best. There’s a line in a hymn that says, “of the best which Thou has given, earth and heaven render Thee.” If I have the motive in my heart that dressing respectfully, not because I think I’m holier than someone else, but because I love the Lord so much I take extra care in a house of prayer, (even Jesus called the temple his “house of prayer” when he threw out the moneychangers) then why am I judged for believing that? All of these issues are moderated by love, of course. I worked in a mission church in inner city Milwaukee and helped with the music there. These were poor residents with very little, rescue mission residents and former drug addicts. I kept that in view when I dressed in that setting because my “best” there kept in view the needs of those around me. Respectful attire is how I word it. Clean, neat, modest for me. I wouldn’t wear my Packers shirt and jeans, but neither would I have worn my best business suit or dress in that setting because I did not want to make them uncomfortable. The article I posted made general observations about the deterioration of standards of any kind in the workplace, public, church, etc. Everything we do as believers need to be motivated by a love for Jesus first, and then also a love for fellow believers. Sometimes we are wrong on things, but an Indian missionary I interviewed showed me photos of the leper colony church he ran Jharkhand. The women, he said, loved to dress in the bright saris provided for them by the mission. He said that the women each had two and liked to dress their best one for worship. Their worship was in a hut with a thatched roof. It was all about their best for Jesus and yes, it was even there that these dear brothers and sisters somehow wanted to show the Lord their love in that simple way. Is that wrong?
June 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Is that wrong?”
No it is not. It is one of several legitimate views, but certainly not any law to the New Testament believer. I have held services on the mission field where all the banana pickers came in their field clothes on Sunday. I wore casual clothes as dogs roamed the dirt floor and mothers nursed their children while singing with all their heart.
Modesty is the only New Testament dress code and our dress can never accurately reveal the purity of our hearts.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Is that wrong? No. Is it right? Not really.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I would just add a thought to this, based on where I live. I’m in the South, but I’m in the heart of a large city in the South, so most of the churches Downtown and Midtown are of the Very Old Large Beautiful mainline Protestant type. Most of the congregants of the churches in these areas are, indeed, upper-middle class white people who can afford to wear their very finest to church. However, my experience with most of these city churches is that, even within their usual congregations, there are some who dress to the nines, some who don’t, some in between, etc. These are also churches which do quite a lot of outreach to the impoverished among and around us, places where it’s indeed common for a homeless person, tattered and torn, to walk in during Eucharist at the oldest Episcopal church in the city, and they are, almost to a ‘t’, resoundingly welcomed in the pews. The position of most of these churches seems to be, “We promise we’re going to be here, and we want you to be, regardless.” I would suggest that the fact that people walking in from the street are NOT immediately greeted by the sight of 500 white people wearing clothes they could never themselves afford, but yet see a diversity in dress and appearance, but a uniformity in welcome, makes the “least of these” feel they have a home in these places.
Perhaps it’s more important that we first make sure that our hearts are in their “finest dress” on Sunday mornings, and let the clothes be as they may. I guarantee that Jesus would rather see a follower in tattered jeans reach out in welcome to a homeless person than an entire congregation of extraordinarily dressed people exchanging pensive looks when one of the outcasts of society comes in. (And all you have to do is drive ten minutes east, and that becomes the congregational “norm.”) If dressing to the nines brings you to a deeper place of reverence, then fine. I don’t think anyone is knocking peoples’ personal convictions.
Anyway. My $.02.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ingrid,
Thanks for your response. I’m really not judging you in this matter- I just wish it went both ways. That is what you prefer, to dress up.
I don’t view it as carelessness- I view it as being authentic before God. I see dressing up in clothes I wouldn’t wear during the week as fake. It has nothing to with God being holy. He is holy, and loving. I should approach him on Sunday morning just like I do any other time during the week. Not to say ‘now I have on my God clothes- we can talk now.’
I really think it is a cultural/generational view. and that’s cool if you want to do it- at our church we have guys in suits (Tim is not one of them) business casual, and jeans and flip flops. I actually prefer it that way. That way whenever visitors come, someone is dressed how they are.
Hope this makes sense, I have a 16 month old trying to help me type at the moment.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Hope this makes sense, I have a 16 month old trying to help me type at the moment.”
He is already doing better than his dad.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
as;ldfjapoiewjfpaowiejf
June 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Mandy,
It does go both ways. You wear what you feel you need to and I wear what I think I should for me. I don’t judge you, the only thing that really bothers me is what I sometimes perceive in people is this idea that worship doesn’t matter, and I somehow feel that things have gotten too casual, too easy and it spills over in how we treat Scripture and live lives. Maybe I’m off on this, but for me, this is what I really feel. Obviously what God is interested in the most is what’s going on in our heart and I think that we can be wrong in our conservative dress if we have rotten motives or think we’re winning points with God, and I think we can also have bad motives if we maybe are treating corporate worship of the Lord when we think that any old thing will do when we come together in worship. But whether buttoned down or casual, it’s obviously about the Lord first because in the end, He is all that matters. I don’t usually post on this site, but this has been interesting. Thank you.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Mrs Schleuter,
I beg to differ. And I say this kindly: If you knew of God’s grace, you would love as you have been loved, forgive as you have been forgiven, and be merciful as mercy has been shown to you. You live out of fear that someone will transgress, not out of amazement that God forgives those who do. You live out of the idea that God is not sovereign and that he needs us to clean up what others wreck–as if He doesn’t know what is going on ‘down here’; as if He can’t handle it. You live in a fuzzy world where everything is so clear that there is no room for mystery.
In short, those who have been forgiven much, forgive much. Those who have been loved much, love much. I have no doubt that you understand grace from a justification point of view, but I don’t believe for a minute you understand it from a sanctification point of view. We are becoming what we are which is what I think you miss over and over again.
That’s the difference, and that’s why I pray for you. Not that I have learned it well or perfectly, but by God’s grace I can love without an agenda, forgive without reciprocation, be merciful in the face of hate, poverty, tears, and footloose and fancy-free dancers and misunderstanders.
I just wonder how much influence you would wield if you approached your ministry from that point of view. If you abandoned pretense and fear and loved, simply and profoundly, as Jesus loved what could you accomplish?
Grace is all we have.
jerry
June 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
i think it does matter, and I don’t think how someone dresses is an indicator in how they view worship. I think as you stated the attitude can be bad both ways. Thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate you posting them.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
One question, Jerry. Were you wearing a tie as you wrote your comment so as to show proper respect for this blog?
PS - the clothes issue represents the most shallow assessment of the church, and in my humble opinion, represents the chronic nature of a consistently negative observation. I do, however, agree that women should have short hair.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Jerry, wonderfully said. Amen.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I mean long hair. (wrong translation!)
June 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ken Silva:
What answers to what questions?
I’m puzzled as to what you are talking about?
Baffled, really, because nobody has asked me a question here about anything.
Although I am thankful that Rick did make the necessary distinction between my being an ogre and a piece of crap.
As far as I can recall, on this thread I’ve largely asked questions about specific hypotheticals that relate to Ingrid, not really you.
I don’t doubt you’re committed to how you see the faith. That’s really not the question on this thread, or the issue on this thread–at least not for me. I’ve raised the questions I had and they’ve been answered.
But, whatever, ya know?
Ingrid gave a fair answer to questions put to her about her. I respect and appreciate her willingness to explain.
Stay dry, Ken. I hear it’s might get rainy up in your neck of the woods these next few days.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Ingrid,
really good thoughts. Not to be disrespectful, but I also think it is a generational thing as well. I remember the first time I went to church in jeans and a t-shirt. My mom (who was raised in the deep south), nearly cried. For her, dressing up was a sign of respect. For my generation, dressing up really doesn’t mean that as much. We do for weddings and such, more so because they are formal events vs. showing respect.
A freind of mine and I were talking about this yesterday. For your generation, taking off your hat was a sign of respect and honor. For my generation, we don’t see that as such any more. I remember being told to take off my hat for prayer, never understanding why. I though “Can God not hear my prayers through the bill of my hat?” It was because that was not how we show respect.
Just some thoughts.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Nathan - I think the teachings of Jesus about the outside/inside of the cup puts that entire subject to rest. It is no longer a generational thing, it is a self righteous thing. It doesn’t just end with clothing, either. It goes into music and litergy and even PULPIT STYLE.
Nope - its a pride thing period.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Just to note (from a business perspective): In the corporate circles I frequently walk in, business casual is the norm (with jeans often on Fridays). When you see someone ‘dress up’ (i.e. tie, suit, etc. if it is not their normal attire), it typically means one of two things:
1) They have a job interview in another department
2) They’re trying to pull a ’snow-job’ (i.e. style over substance, authenticity)
June 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The necktie was popularized by France’s King Louis XIV who was a war monger and many considered almost a god. He saw it on heathen soldiers and liked the way they looked. In essence, they are cultrally heathen and represent humanism in clothing.
When you add different colors and styles you have arrived at a complete cultural compromise as well as accenting the human form with heathenistic traditions. In short, worldly!
June 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
this is why I think that in some circumstances “clericals” can be helpful.
Like it or not, “religious leaders” in our culture have a role and a “uniform” of sorts is helpful.
I hate the worship of suits because as a pastor I am not a middle manager, a lawyer, or a door to door salesman.
This is why i’ve heard it said: When I see a Buddhist priest, I see a spiritual man. When I see a Christian pastor all I see is a manager.
Ouch.
Of course, it’s about the heart, but I think what we wear can connote something about our roles/jobs.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Nathan,
I agree that things are certainly changing and they always do on the clothes front over time, but I guess my question is, how low do we want to go? Is there any standard at all that should be observed? Is beach stuff OK when other options are fully available? That’s what I’m wrestling with. How casual do we want to get? Not just church but work as well? I read one columnist who said we can do pretty much what we want now, but that if we veer too far into any extreme we are saying a lot about ourselves and our values and not necessarily positively. I posted a piece this morning on Slice about some Christians who have banded together to put a college prep school together in our central city and they now have 500 students enrolled. The boys wear blazers, ties, white shirts and dress pants. The chemistry teacher told me that it has a huge impact on performance and identity for these kids. Clothes do make a statement and the gang clothes aren’t going to help these kids to break the cycle of poverty and violence. So I think clothes do say things about our priorities. To these young men, those neck ties represent a different world that offers them hope for a life of accomplishment and responsibility. They don’t represent bondage but rather an escape from bondage. Just a few thoughts.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
very good thoughts Ingrid! I do agree that clothes make statements, and even hold people in certain unhealthy social strata. I just think that we need to be careful about placing such an importance on clothing in church. I would rather have someone in rags and fully devoted than have a well dressed man who is superficial and disconnected from God.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
33: Wow… I realize I’m late to the party, but Ingrid, I didn’t know you had all that going on with the porn bombs and the death threats. I’m sorry that you have to deal with that; most of it can be summarily dismissed, but then you also have to constantly be on the lookout for that one wacko who lacks a sense of … proportion. Given that, along with the challenges each day brings on its own, I can understand why your guard would be up, you have to develop a thick skin, and you may have a heightened sensitivity toward those who disagree with you as well as those who would mean you harm.
Having said that, I would caution, as one who’s been there, that you can harden yourself to the point where you can weather the threats, but can no longer distinguish a “friendly” who may disagree with you and is critical from those who genuinely mean you harm, and end up treating them both the same as your worst enemy.
Having said that, I dress for work in a particular manner because I’m being paid to do a job and I agreed to adhere to a code of conduct in the course of doing my job, which includes a dress code. I don’t think the first century cultural implications of guady dress, makeup, braided hair and jewelry in church is the same in today’s Western culture, but the eternal principle expressed today is something like don’t dress like a prostitute (I think the same principle applies to men dressing provocatively as well).
Another thing that continues to stick out for me is that the first century church didn’t have pulpits, pews, knaves, transepts, etc. Those things came later, I believe, with a group of people who elevated the clergy as above, removed from, and unaccountable to, the laity.
Lastly, for those of us who believe in the shed blood of Christ (i.e., finished work on the cross, death, burial and resurrection) for salvation, we’re not being invited by God to come to church. We’re being invited/urged/commanded to be the church. Not just on Sundays or whenever we meet, but all those other “not-so-best” times of the day and week when we’re not looking, dressing, smelling or behaving the way we would (no matter the standard of dress) in a church building. That is the thing I try to remember the other days of the week when the building is locked down to keep out the unwanted…
Just another perspective to consider.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Ingrid,
though we may not agree on some things… really you would be floored to find out what we do agree on, I appreciate you tone and conversation hear. It is good to see one actually in dialog.
disagreement is not a sin, but when we cross the line where it seems that our “right” is more right than others, then I think we all need to pull back and realize “no one is right” (Rom 3:10) except Jesus alone.
That is why we all should error on the side of Grace. It is better to show love through grace and mercy and be wrong than to fail and be show wrong. If we do truly trust Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit, then the battle is already won as Jesus is in control as the Father promised.
To give direction to a weaker sister of brother is a good and godly thing, but to tear them done with name calling is far from edifying. (Rom 14:19)
My prayer has always been for reconciliation and the call to Unity in the Spirit of Christ to lay aside trivial differences so that we can focus on the will and work the Father has prepared for us in Christ Jesus… this is my prayer for you and for Ken Silva.
Peace,
iggy
June 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I started two paragraphs with “Having said that.” I really didn’t mean to do that.
I’m a people watcher in general, so I’ll toss some pet peeves of mine out there.
The half-tuck (reminds me of a class fifth grade boys who all forget to zip their pants): It’s like a mullet - business in the front, party in the back.
The whale tale (too often, those who can, don’t; those who do, shouldn’t)
Inappropriate busting of the sag (it’s a prison thang, folks)
Women who make the wrong choice of wearing those snug low-rise jeans that are supposed to make the butt look not so big (usually with a belly shirt), but instead creates a muffin top effect on the sides and front, and a “coin slot” in the back.
Plum smugglers
Those peasant tops that make any woman wearing them look pregnant.
Socks and sandals: if it’s warm/cold enough to wear the one, you shouldn’t wear the other.