First of all, in a little pet peeve … the Church is not a building, its the people and community that makes one up … but you know what I mean, so let’s get on with it.
I’ve dealt with this one my whole life, it feels like. What is it about American Christianity that equates outward appearance with inward spirituality?
When I was going into the 4th grade, my parents put me into a Christian school. It wasn’t all that bad, except for a crazy teacher here or there that the school was desperate enough to hire and allow to go on her rampages, but there was a dress code for the school. Now, I’m not against dress codes necessarily, and we’ll get to that later, but this one was very strict. You had to wear long pants (I can’t remember if jeans were allowed), a collared shirt with at least three buttons (and only one of those could be unbuttoned), and your hair could not be past your eyes, your ears or your collar.
We moved from that school to the Atlanta area in the middle of my 6th grade year. The fellowship we attended was extremely conservative in its dress (suits, ties were pretty standard … on Sunday nights ties and coats were optional).
I have to say I never understood this fascination with external appearances from people who say they believe in an invisible God, even as a child. After deciding to really commit my heart and life to the Lord, a real repentant time, my heart began to rebel against this even more. I knew the religious game and how to play it well. I knew that what had changed in me was internal, and I actually started to feel free enough to grow my hair long, quit basketball and learn how to play the guitar so I could rock for the Lord.
This was unique in Northern Georgia for the time. I was one of the first guys to have long hair at North Gwinnett High School. I might have been the first to put it up in a ponytail. Most people I knew who got “saved” cut their hair and “cleaned up” their appearance. Most of the fellowships taught that it was one and the same.
An embarassing story about myself tells of a time when a friend invited me along to a local Baptist fellowship for some special event. The usher took one look at me and gave me an eat crap or die look for my long hair, my heavy metal t-shirt and jeans and the cap I was wearing. He pounced. “Take that hat off in the house of God,” he told me very sternly.
My response? “I am the house of God.”
Now, years later and a little more mature (not much …), I probably would have taken off the hat and maybe even addressed the subject in a much calmer tone. I would still probably challenge him, though.
For the last four years I have worked at a Christian school. One of my main criticisms has been the strict dress code and rules on length of hair. Why are we comfortable equating Christianity with external appearances? Why do we shrug our shoulders as if that’s just the way it is and we can’t change it?
There is still, within the American Christian mindset, the attitude that to be a Christian means to dress a certain way, especially if you’re minister. People who minister should definitely wear something nice, at least a shirt and tie, unless you’re the youth pastor or a Contemporary Christian artist … then you can look cool.
I don’t find standards of appearance anywhere in the Bible, at least not the ones we try to have. They didn’t even have suits or polo shirts or loafers or cool turtleneck sweaters when the Bible was written. There aren’t any different standards for leaders in the Church, either. Nowhere was Timothy or Titus or anyone else told to dress up a little more for the meetings.
Under the law, of course, the Levites had to wear very elaborate clothes and be very ritualistic. But I read somewhere that we’re not under the Law anymore. So we look to the New Testament and the New Covenant to address the issue.
There are two main scriptures that you could apply here. In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses a couple of things. First he addresses head coverings. He says that in the public meeting, women should cover their heads and men should not. This was a sign of the authority of a man in their life, whether their husband, father, older brother or even the pastor. It was a sign of submission for women. There is also a short mention of long and short hair, how women should have long hair and men should have shorter hair.
To address the head covering, it is fairly clear that Paul is putting forth a standard based on a principle of the submission of women, so that when they minister in a public meeting, there is still an outward sign of their submission to authority. Let’s remember a couple things here. First of all, in the Jewish culture, under the Jewish law, women were to be completely silent during the meetings, so any opportunity to share was pretty progressive. Second, women would many times lead pagan ceremonies, even serving as prostitutes at times. Paul was giving freedom while making a distinction, using a cultural symbol that most would understand.
There are two reactions to this idea. The first extreme is to say that was only the culture then and we don’t have to really follow that anymore because that’s not our culture. Really? Then why do we push our culture on the Body of Christ? Seems hypocritical to me, but we’ll get to that more later.
The other reaction is to have women cover their heads with a hat or shawl or something. I actually don’t have as much of a problem with this one, because at least you can find an example of it in the Bible. The women covered their heads in India where we were, and it didn’t keep women from participating in the meeting.
There are varying degrees of reaction between the two, but that’s the general shift. I feel like as long as the principle is being followed, where women understand on some level their submission to male authority, how it is symbolized shouldn’t really matter. That’s a personal feeling on a debatable issue, however.
With hair, there are two standards. First, men are supposed to have “short hair”. This was one of the most hypocritically used scriptures in the Bible as I grew up. People would point this verse out to me at our fellowship growing up. “Short hair” in the biblical times could be anything to your shoulders. The only people who had really short hair (like we think of today) were Roman pagans. Short hair in that sense was a symbol of paganism to the Jews and early Christians if anything. Also, women were not supposed to cut their hair. At all. Here is the hypocritical part. Fine, you want me to cut my hair because of what the Bible says … what about that 80 year old prayer warrior with the blue hair whose locks are maybe three inches long if you extend the curls? Have you pulled her aside in the back of the building and explained the scripture to her? Of course not.
And here we have it. In those moments, people are not trying to teach scripture or the Kingdom of God. They are pushing their own conservative culture on the Body of Christ. They might as well be Judaizers asking about circumcision and whether or not we eat pork. Its just as detestable to the freedom we have in Christ.
The other scripture is that ever elusive and misused “Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greek” in order that some may be saved. This one ticks me off, too, because Paul was actually talking about evangelism and how we shouldn’t let culture be a stumbling block to sinners. We use it to put the Body of Christ in bondage to a worldly culture. How many sinners show up to your service every week checking out whether or not you’re wearing the right getup? I would guess not very many.
The other thing that chaps me is when American missionaries show up in some foreign land and make some dudes in Africa dress like them in suits and rolex watches and sing American hymns. Its shameful to me to equate the supernatural new birth with conversion to American culture.
In actuality, the scripture says we are NOT supposed to dress up. Peter tells women NOT to adorn themselves in outward ways, but that their beauty should be inward and their character should shine for all to see. There are extremes here, as well, but what is the principle? That character is what people should see. Character is what is important to God. Why do we spend so much time on the outward appearance?
James also rebukes a fellowship for giving special treatment to the rich, saying that instead the poor should get the place of honor, for they are rich in faith. How could they tell the difference? Its possible that the community just knew, and they probably did, but common sense also tells us that the rich probably dressed just a little better.
Now I’m not against standards, necessarily, just ones that we justify with Christian motives. At a public school, if they want to have uniforms, that’s fine, but when we do it at a Christian school, our lives are a testimony and it says something about what we believe. People watch us. I believe we do need to dress modestly, but there are cultural standards of modesty that are constantly changing and different countries where the standards are drastically different. The Bible itself does not address skirt length or bare shoulders or even belly buttons. The main issue with how immodest most people dress has to do with ignorance (which necessitates more discipleship …) or motivation (dressing purposefully to attract the opposite sex).
It has been my experience however, that as people mature in Christ, they dress a little more modestly, especially women. Men begin to dress a little more manly, as well, as becoming a man of God is empowering to true masculinity. Women are more assured of love and attention through the family of God, female friends and their relationship with their Heavenly Husband above all, and their dress will begin to change. They become more firm in their boundaries, feminine in their relationships, and assured of their worth as He tells them they are attractive to Him because of their character. I’ve seen this many times at the House … and I’ve never had to address it. As I point them continually to Christ, the growth is natural, for both men and women, to fulfill what God has for them in their gender roles within their families, their marriages and the Body of Christ as a whole.
Alright, so now we get to the one scripture that I still struggle with. In Romans, Paul tells us that if something external (he uses food, but the principle is there) causes someone to stumble or offends their convictions, we should be sensitive to that brother (or sister) and not place a stumbling block in his way.
This is the one that tells us to be sensitive and love our brothers and sisters despite their convictions about debatable subjects. I struggle with it because how I dress isn’t important … or shouldn’t be to me. When I get up in front of people to minister, I don’t want my outfit to cause people to turn me off automatically. I go back on forth on this one.
But there are two points to be made here. First of all, he’s talking about new converts who don’t know any better. Second, he calls them weak in the faith. These convictions about external matters are spiritual weakness. They don’t prove any spiritual maturity, only the lack of it.
If I had a baby Christian come up to me and say they had a real problem with the jeans and t-shirts I wear when I minister (maybe a polo shirt on a special occasion!), I might have to be sensitive. But you know how many times that has happened in my lifetime? I can’t think of one. I can’t think one instance where a baby Christian has been offended at my choice of clothing in any way shape or form. It’s usually the ones who have been Christians for a long time and have been raised in bondage (to be honest, that’s what it is) or the leadership or other ministers. Pastors and ministers and other leaders make the rules and make the excuses.
My final question would be this: why is it okay that our leaders are spiritually weak?
To me? It isn’t.
Peace.