Whatever happened to dressing up on Easter Sunday?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, April 10, 2004 | Alyson Walls

[Willie Green]

Although famed musical composer Irving Berlin thought them lovely enough to write a sonnet, nowadays few women are donning Easter bonnets.

In fact, you're more apt to see wrinkled khakis and rumpled polo shirts than pressed suits and pastel pumps at church on Sunday.

While Easter Sunday has traditionally been the day to show off your new spring finery, America has become a nation that dresses down, and not just on "casual Fridays" in the office.

[adiaireton8]

If you can point me to the scriptures that indicate that I should dawn my finest adornments please do.

This "sola scriptura" mentality is the problem here. Where in Scripture does it say not to give God the finger?

This is why God gave us *reason*.

No one has posted a Scripture verse that says that it doesn't matter how you dress when you come into God's presence.

[Mamzelle]

Dressing well shows respect. You are right.

However, keep in mind that other "powers" are at work , powers of evil, when Mom is frantically trying to get everyone out of bed, and they're cranky, and nothing fits and everything is wrinkly. Outgrown pants, no belt, only one patent leather shoe...and, of course, outright rebellion to what Mom thinks is pretty and what Junior is sure makes him a dork.

There's a good side to dressing casual--it means regular clothes are ready and familiar to the children that wear them.

But--I'd rather have it the other way, with little girls in gloves and boys in ties. Reality obstructs. It's a battle just getting everyone there on time...and a victory to at least arrive clean.

[RockyMtnMan]

325 Says it well

"For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, 'You sit here in a good place,' and say to the poor man, 'You stand there,' or, 'Sit here at my footstool,' have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?"

Basically it states pay no attention to adornments and focus on the greatness of God not the greatness of man's creations.

"In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works."

Kinda says don't show off but to dress in a humble but reasonable fashion, like Christ.

Where in Scripture does it say not to give God the finger?

The Bible actually says something about what to wear in Church. Whereas flipping the bird would probably fall into the category of using the Lord's name in vain. I recommend against this course of action, as bad things might happen.

[Unknowing]

Lol; thank you, ma'am, I'm flattered!

[mlmr]

I don't think there's necessaroly anything wrong with wearing polo shirt and khakis. Now don't read what I am about to say the wrong way, but times have changed, and fashions along with them. The perception today is that polo shirts, khakis, and dress shoes are what passes for formal these days.

Actually when I see polo shirt and khakies I think "Target Sales Associate."

[Rytwyng]

Do you think that 'Sola Scriptura' means that all true aesthetic values must be derived from Scripture?

Not at all. I'm saying that you have no right to impose your own personal aesthetic values as a condition of attending worship, on people who have a PHYSICAL CONDITION that makes conforming to your standard just about unbearable. Go see post 206.

I'm sure that we agree that exposed thongs, miniskirts, etc, have no place in church because their clear intent is to provoke lust. However I'm talking about a totally separate issue - I wear clean, modest, but "casual" clothing to church (and work) beacause almost all of the so-called "nice" stuff is unbearably uncomfortable to me. And I am by no means alone in this.

[adiaireton8]

Doing what's right sometimes takes more work, more time, getting up earlier, (ironing clothes the night before if necessary), actually making a sacrifice to show reverence for God. No doubt dressing casual is easier. But the path of least resistance is not necessarily the best path.

Requiring your children to dress up for church is a way of teaching your children reverence and respect for God. Letting them wear casual clothes is a way of teaching them that God is not any more important than school.

[adiaireton8]

The passage in James is forbidding showing *favoritism* ("partiality"). It has *nothing* to do with the importance of showing respect and reverence for God in the manner of one's dress in God's presence. Anyone who claims that the James passage teaches that it doesn't matter how one dresses in God's presence is mistinterpreting the passage.

The I Tim 2 passage is requiring that women dress *modestly*, meaning, not provocatively. This passage has *nothing* to do with the importance of showing respect and reverence for God in the manner of one's dress in God's presence. If you read them carefully you will see that what I'm saying is true.

Dressing respectfully and reverently requires that one not dress provocatively. Dressing respectfully and reverently does not necessarily mean that one must wear expensive clothes. But it does mean that one shouldn't dress sloppily, causally, slovenly or slatternly.

The Bible actually says something about what to wear in Church.

If you are referring to the James and Timothy passages, then I have already shown you have misinterpreted these passages.

Whereas flipping the bird would probably fall into the category of using the Lord's name in vain.

If that commandment is that broad, then that commandment requires that we not dress in a disrespectful or irreverant manner in God's presence.

[adiaireton8]

Not at all. I'm saying that you have no right to impose your own personal aesthetic values as a condition of attending worship, on people who have a PHYSICAL CONDITION that makes conforming to your standard just about unbearable.

Obviously, if you are actually unable to dress respectfully and reverently, then as long as you are in that condition, you are not obligated to do so. Most people are not in your condition.

By the way, aesthetic values are not mine. Aesthetic relativism is false. There are objective aesthetic truths. Furthermore, I am not "imposing" anything on anyone. I am stating truths about how God is to be treated in our manner of dress. I *do* have the right (in this country at least) to state truths about how God is to be treated in our manner of dress.

[adiaireton8]

Now don't read what I am about to say the wrong way, but times have changed, and fashions along with them. The perception today is that polo shirts, khakis, and dress shoes are what passes for formal these days.

Will you be saying the same thing when a colored tee-shirt and khaki shorts passes for formal? How about when baseball cap, untucked in tank-top, and baggy pants pulled up to the middle thigh passes for formal? If not, why not?

[mlmr]

Now don't read what I am about to say the wrong way, but times have changed, and fashions along with them. The perception today is that polo shirts, khakis, and dress shoes are what passes for formal these days.

I didn't say this, my response is underneath, I think polos and khakis make people look like Target Sales Associates.......in other words ENTRY LEVEL.

[RockyMtnMan]

The Bible has meaning for everyone, the meaning I get from it and many other teachings says that we should be humble before God and others. Dressing flashy, which for my generation includes wearing a full suit and tie, is not being humble. Maybe this is just a generational issue and if so it will work it's way out when the older generation moves on to their reward. God knows what is in my heart and he'll know that I'm not being disrespectful of him, he'll recognize it as humility before others.

The Timothy passage spells it out in black in white, expensive clothes and jewelry. A suit is expensive even for a cheap one. The passage also should be applied to men as well. The James passage discusses favoritism based on material wealth and status. What better way to eliminate that human inclination than for all to dress according to the lowest mans means and show him that wealth is not something to covet? If you refuse to dress down because you feel it's demeaning somehow maybe you should take a look at the reason you feel that way.

The "bird" has explicit meaning and can be translated into actual language and is recognized as the symbol of fornication.

Christ will speak for me because I have a relationship with him and he will not guide me astray. If you feel I am somehow insincere or way off the path, then pray for me and I shall pray that you see my view as true.

[adiaireton8]

I didn't say this, my response is underneath, I think polos and khakis make people look like Target Sales Associates.......in other words ENTRY LEVEL.

My mistake. When quoting others, try using italics so that it is distinguished from what you are saying.

[Mamzelle]

re: Requiring your children to dress up for church is a way of teaching your children reverence and respect for God.)))

I agree--but there's still some points for showing up on time.

[mlmr]

My mistake. When quoting others, try using italics so that it is distinguished from what you are saying.


Oh no! Not the dreaded HMTL!!!

[adiaireton8]

The Bible has meaning for everyone, the meaning I get from it and many other teachings says that we should be humble before God and others.

I agree that we should be humble before God. Dressing sloppily or casually when coming into God's presence is not being humble; it is treating God like your buddy, your equal.

Dressing flashy, which for my generation includes wearing a full suit and tie, is not being humble.

'Flashy' means "cheap or showy, gaudy"; it suggests "insistent and vulgar display, in rather a sporty manner". (Webster's Unabridged) And 'gaudy' means "excessively showy, showy without taste, ostentatiously ornamented". Flashy dress is intended to draw attention to oneself; such an attitude is definitely not humble. But you are oversimplying the available choices. As you describe it, either we must choose between being flashy, which is clearly not humble, or we must dress casually. That, however, is a false dilemma. It is quite possible to dress reverently and respectfully without being flashy or casual.

God knows what is in my heart and he'll know that I'm not being disrespectful of him, he'll recognize it as humility before others.

Uzzah might have said the same thing when steadying the ark. (2 Samuel 6:7)

Moses could have said the same thing when he struck the rock. (Numbers 20:11)

Nadab and Abihu could have said the same thing when God consumed them with fire for using unauthorized fire. (Leviticus 10:2)

The man at the wedding who was not wearing wedding clothes could have said the same thing. (Matt 22:11-12)

The Christians in Corinth could have said the same things when they died for taking the Eucharist in an irreverent manner. (1 Corinthians 11:30)

It is not enough to have good motives in one's approach to God. There are certain requirements regarding *outward* form as well.

The Timothy passage spells it out in black in white, expensive clothes and jewelry. A suit is expensive even for a cheap one. The passage also should be applied to men as well.

Are you interested in actually exegeting the passage, or in using it to say whatever you already believe? If you study this passage carefully, you will see that Paul is not at all prohibiting respectful and reverent dress, nor is he requiring causal dress. He is forbidding ostentatiousness, immodesty and provocative dress. A suit and tie need not be ostentatious, immodest, or provocative.

The James passage discusses favoritism based on material wealth and status. What better way to eliminate that human inclination than for all to dress according to the lowest mans means and show him that wealth is not something to covet?

Here you sound like a socialist. What better way to eliminate favoritism than to dress as the poorest person among us? In fact, what better way to eliminate class envy than to enforce equal redistribution of wealth? Interesting ideas, but neither of these ideas are in this James passage.

Christ will speak for me because I have a relationship with him and he will not guide me astray.

This is naivete and anti-intellectualism. Do you realize that there are literally thousands of different 'Christian' denominations and sects, each member of which could say the very same thing, and yet they have fundamental disagreements, even over essentials? They can't all be right. Should we blame Christ for leading all these people astray, or, should we realize that we can't just stick our heads in the sand and trust in Christ to keep us from going astray. We have to use our minds and study these things carefully. The blind person who gets in a car and starts to drive claiming that Christ will not lead him off the road is trusting in Christ to do something that Christ never promised to do (i.e. drive for him). Likewise, the person who lives the Christian life without thinking and studying, claiming that God will not lead him astray, is also trusting in Christ to do something that Christ never promised to do (i.e. think for him).

[adiaireton8]

If your priorities are right, you will do both: dress up your kids for church (or teach them to dress up themselves), *and* get them there on time. If your daughter had a ballet recital, you would be sure to have her there not only finely dressed, but a half-hour early. It all depends on what is important to you.

[banyanroot]

I fail to see why it matters what we wear to church so long as it doesn't expose too much skin or isn't making some sort of statement like a shirt emblazoned with a marijuana leaf.

Fashion is a hugely successful marketing campaign. People get rid of perfectly good clothes because they are not in style. Just think - if a mere 1% of what we blow on stylish clothes was instead donated to programs that help out the families of our brave troops, millions of dollars would be far better spent.

Furthermore, I expect that rather than critiquing our attire, God looks in our hearts and where he may find some lacking crosses all boundaries of the fashion spectrum.

[Protagoras]

Woodstock-era Baby Boomer hippies are all a bunch of lazy, atheistic slobs.

Nice way to start a thread. A trolls dream.

BTW, how many atheists do you know who go to church?

[Protagoras]

Maybe I'm a disgruntled Catholic. That's where I'm at right now.

Time for a little reflection based on a study of different denominations. Maybe a little church shopping would be useful.